Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Energy Conservation Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

INSPECTION OF PLANS ETC.

'. An energy conservation authority shall, at all reasonable times and free of charge, make available at its principal offices for inspection by members of the public a copy of—

(a) any plan prepared under this Act by the authority, and
(b) any modification of any such plan.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 4—Charges for copy plans etc. (No. 2)—
'. An energy conservation authority may make such charge as it considers appropriate for—

(a) supplying a copy of, or of any extract of, any plan which the authority has prepared under this Act,
(b) supplying a copy of any modification of any such plan, or
(c) making available for inspection, or supplying copies of, any other documents relating to, or to the preparation of, any such plan or modification.'.

New clause 5— Power to fix charges under section [Charges for copy plans etc. (No. 2)]
'-(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the maximum amounts which may be charged under section [Charges for copy plans etc. (No. 2)] above.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
New clause 6—Charges for copy plans etc.
'.—(1) An energy conservation authority may, subject to subsection (2) below, make such charge as it considers appropriate for—

(a) supplying a copy of, or of any extract of, any plan which the authority has prepared under this Act,
(b) supplying a copy of any modification of any such plan, or
(c) making available for inspection, or supplying copies of, any other documents relating to, or to the preparation of, any such plan or modification.

(2) A charge under this section shall not exceed the cost to the authority of providing the service concerned.'.
Amendment No. 50, in clause 2, page 2, leave out from beginning of line 45 to end of line 26 on page 3.
Amendment No. 209, in page 2, line 45, leave out from `authority' to end of line 26 on page 3 and insert
'to consult such persons as it considers appropriate.'.
Amendment No. 216, in page 3, line 9, clause 2, at end insert—
'( ) representatives of organisations concerned with the provision of affordable energy for the elderly and those on a low incomes;'.
Amendment No. 210, in page 3, line 10, clause 2, after 'Council', insert
',the Office of Gas Supply, the Electricity Consumers' Committees'.
Amendment No. 188, in page 3, line 16, leave out
', subject to subsection (6) below,'.
Amendment No. 211, in page 3, line 18, after 'the', insert 'proposed'.
Amendment No. 214, in page 3, line 22, leave out '(iii)' and insert
'(c) before finally determining the content of any plan or modification'.
Amendment No. 215, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'by the public' and insert
'(including any representations made otherwise than under sub-paragraph (ii) above)'.
Amendment No. 212, in page 3, line 23, after first 'the', insert 'proposed'.
Amendment No. 189, in page 3, leave out lines 25 and 26.

Mr. Baldry: It may be helpful if I deal generally with the amendments, which concern public access to plans and consultation on those plans. Public access is covered by the new clauses and amendments Nos. 54, 57, 87 and 89; consultation is covered by amendments Nos. 109, 209, 68, 70, 71, 153, 152, 150, 75 and 76. I shall consider each of those main subjects separately.
The Bill places great emphasis on—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have no complaint about the Minister's deliberate attempt to wreck the Bill, but I had hoped that he would at least take the opportunity to say whether the Government have an energy conservation policy, as they seem to put their emphasis through the Energy Saving Trust and we now know that the regulators have said that there will be no money for that. If the Government wish to wreck the Bill, should they not come clean at some point today and say how they will carry out their real commitments?

Mr. Baldry: It is a bit rich to be accused of seeking to wreck the Bill when I have uttered only three words. I intend during the course of this debate not only to respond to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman but to refer to an enormous amount of what the Government are doing for energy efficiency. The idea that somehow the Bill is a touchstone of the Government's energy efficiency policies is clearly and patently ridiculous.
The Bill places great emphasis on consultation when plans are being prepared. It lists in detail all those who should be consulted and says that members of the public should have opportunities to make representations and that local authorities should consider those representations. I am surprised to see, however, that it makes no provision whatever for public access to completed plans. That is a serious omission because, in the interests of open government, plans should be available for inspection. I am surprised that that did not occur to the Bill's proposer. It may help hon. Members if I remind them of our commitment to open government.

Mr. A. J. Beith: If the Minister is surprised, I am surprised that it did not occur to the Government in Committee that such an amendment would be desirable. Only five amendments were tabled in Committee, whereas more than 200 amendments, all originating from the Government, have been tabled for today. I can assist the Minister by saying that I am happy to accept the new clause and that we can now proceed to the next.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for helping us to make progress.
I am happy to explain why the new clause is worth while. The code of practice on open government, foreshadowed in the July 1993 White Paper, came into force on 4 April for all Government Departments and bodies under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
The Government are discussing with the local authority associations how to take forward a similar code for local authorities. The associations are keen to build on the considerable openness that already exists. Local debate has become much better informed since the public were given statutory rights of access to local authority meetings. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher who, shortly after she was first elected to the House, proposed in a private Member's Bill opening committee meetings to the public. There was an increase in access to local authority meetings and papers associated with them in the mid 1980s, and local government is now much more open.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said that he is prepared to accept the new clause, will the Minister explain why he is proceeding at such a pedestrian rate when it would be possible for him to tear up his notes and proceed to the next group of amendments and new clauses? Is the Minister trying to be energy-efficient by going so slowly?

Mr. Baldry: I frequently speak in the House, and clocked up my 60th Adjournment debate last week. Those who have heard me speak know that I do so at a pretty consistent speed, as I am doing today. I am seeking to cover various points in the debate, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be hawk-eyed and eared to ensure that we all remain in order. I am seeking to cover a large number of amendments, not all of which have been tabled by the Government. Some have been tabled by my hon. Friends, who no doubt will wish to speak to them. It would be courteous to the House if I set out the background of the amendments.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend knows that I am a committed supporter of the Bill, which has great support in Norwich—one of the districts where energy efficiency measures have been taken seriously. Will he bear in mind, in his conduct in the debate and his speeches on amendments, that there are many amendments? It would probably be wise for him to consider the speedy acceptance of those for which there is total support across the House.
Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind recent reports by the Environment Select Committee and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the Chairman of that Select Committee, who felt

that, in spite of the good work that the Government are doing in that sphere, they must take the matter more seriously? Will he ensure that he includes in his remarks reference to the fact that there should be greater enthusiasm for progress, even though he may criticise details of some of the amendments and may wish to move other amendments?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend was present when we debated the Bill on Second Reading. He will recall that I then set out in detail what the Government were doing to promote energy efficiency, and I am sure that we will discuss that again today. As I made clear during questions on Wednesday, it is ludicrous to believe that the Bill is a touchstone of the Government's commitment to energy efficiency.
As we made clear on Second Reading, and as I made clear on Wednesday, our concerns about the Bill—which I am sure will be highlighted again today—involve the extra burdens that it would place on local authorities and the extra, unnecessary and unreasonable costs that it would place on taxpayers. I am sure that we shall discuss those concerns in detail during today's debate.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I am concerned that my hon. Friend is moving new clause 1, when its effect would be to impose costs on local authorities that would have to make available plans and details of modifications. What will that cost? How does it square with the Government's policy which, as I understand it, is that local authorities should prepare plans only for their own housing stock, not for all residential accommodation in the district?
If it is right that the local authority will simply produce a plan dealing with its own housing stock, how can it possibly be justified in those circumstances to introduce such an expensive commitment? The proposal would mean that any member of the public could find out what his neighbour, who may live in a council house, planned to do with his house. That would be unnecessary and bureaucratic.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The thrust of the new clause is as follows. If there is a duty on local authorities to provide information—the Bill seeks to place a duty on local authorities to provide and draw up plans—those plans should, as a matter of course, be accessible to the public. There will be some people who believe that local authorities should not draw up plans in that way—my hon. Friend's comments clearly show that he is among them. That is a matter that we shall need to consider.

Mr. Heald: I certainly accept that a local authority should have an energy efficiency plan for its own housing stock, and I have no difficulty about the timetabling for that. I object to the idea that such plans should be drawn up for the homes of individual occupiers—owner-occupiers of their own homes. If it is a purely internal document dealing with the local authority's own housing stock, I do not see why it should be made available to the public as the councillors who represent them will already have the plan.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes two good points. It was made clear by what the Government said on Second Reading that, as we would expect, local authorities already


carry out a considerable amount of work when considering the condition of their own housing stock. Only recently we made it a precondition of local authorities submitting their housing investment programmes that they should have regard to energy efficiency. Even with regard to those proposals, we expect local authorities to be as open as possible. Each year we expect, as a matter of course, local authorities to consult with tenants' and residents' groups about their housing investment programme. Local authorities' proposals for their own housing stock should be open, and discussed with tenants and residents groups.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): I am considering the full import of what my hon. Friend said. There is no doubt that we have to be careful. Many of my constituents are concerned about the level of expenditure of Elmbridge council. It is a disaster for any council not to be under Conservative control. We have no overall control at Elmbridge, which could have burdens placed on it by the Bill. Sadly, I was not selected to serve on the Committee considering the Bill; otherwise I might have been able to table amendments. Now that I have had a further chance to consider the Bill, I have been able to table amendments. Our constituents need to understand the full implications of the costs to councils.
My hon. Friend the Minister should discuss the new clause in full, regardless of the way in which the Liberals want to slip it under the table. They will not want to face up to the extra cost burden that Liberal local councillors will gleefully impose but will announce only after the local election campaign.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Because the Bill is called the Energy Conservation Bill, the impression has been given that it is all that stands between us and ensuring the best energy conservation practice. One must remember exactly what the Bill proposes. It proposes placing a statutory duty on every local authority to carry out an energy audit of every house. That is far away from some of the suggestions made in the national press today. The Daily Mirror today reported the Bill as a bid to help the families and old folk who were hardest hit by VAT on fuel, which is absolute bunkum. Nothing in the Bill would give one penny in help to those groups. All the Bill would do is to make it clear—

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I am happy to give way to all hon. Members, but I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who raised a serious issue.
This Bill would not contribute one penny to old folk or families. It certainly would not necessarily bring about any greater efficiency in respect of heating bills. All it does is to place an extra statutory duty on every local authority, and it involves them in extra costs which they, because it is a statutory duty, will look to central Government and the taxpayer to fund.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that the Bill aims to provide a cost-efficient means of developing energy conservation? In that connection, does he agree that energy efficiency is an essential component in sustainable development? The Government have a sustainable development advisory group, chaired by Sir Crispin

Tickell. Have they received any advice or representations from that group, or from Sir Crispin himself, about the Bill?

Mr. Baldry: The Government are entirely committed to promoting energy efficiency. Ours was the first country to publish its plans and proposals for meeting the international obligations to combat carbon dioxide emissions and to ensure that they are restored to 1990 levels by the year 2000. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister only recently published our national programme on sustainable development.
There is no difference between us on the importance of energy efficiency: we are determined to promote it. That is why the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been doubled this year; it is why the amount of money we are spending on the home energy efficiency scheme has been nearly doubled this year; it is why about 250,000 homes will benefit from that scheme this year. What we are worried about is the fact that the Bill places an unnecessary burden on local authorities and unnecessary costs on taxpayers.
I am not aware of any specific advice that Sir Crispin Tickell may have given on this Bill, but I should be surprised if Sir Crispin and his committee thought that this was a particularly good way of promoting energy efficiency—putting extra burdens on local authorities and more costs on taxpayers.
As we shall no doubt hear in the course of this morning's debate—hon. Members often pray this in aid—many local authorities are already doing much of what is involved in the Bill. So there is no need to impose this extra statutory burden on them, or to incur more costs for taxpayers.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that Scottish Homes, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government which is responsible for a sizeable proportion of the Scottish housing stock, between 1991 and 1992 carried out an extensive survey, on behalf of the Government and at the Government's expense, with the express purpose of establishing a benchmark of housing conditions against which local authorities can measure the findings of their own local house condition surveys—and it is to be repeated every four years?
Therefore, the Government have already undertaken this sort of work on behalf of all householders in Scotland. Why do they not facilitate it for the rest of the United Kingdom? It seems to be bureaucratic and over-expensive in England and Wales, but not in Scotland.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point. He was not present on Second Reading; his interest in the Bill is somewhat belated. As I said then, and as we have often made clear, we would expect local authorities, as a natural part of their work looking after their own housing stock, to carry out stock condition surveys, and as part of that work we would certainly expect them to have regard to energy efficiency. Indeed, many local authorities have spent considerable sums every year on repairing and refurbishing their stock. Whenever they undertake such work, we would expect them to consider how they can improve energy efficiency in their housing stock.
Likewise we would expect housing associations to carry out surveys of the condition of their stock and to have regard to how it can be made more energy efficient. As part


of the Energy Efficiency Office's best-practice programme we have published comprehensive guidance for local authorities and housing associations on how they can improve the energy efficiency of their stock—that already goes on. It already happens; it does not require legislation to enable it to happen.
It was made clear on Second Reading, and it has been made clear to the Bill's promoter ever since, that we consider that the statutory obligation to be placed on local authorities to carry out an energy audit of every house in the country places an unnecessary burden on them and incurs unnecessary costs for taxpayers. When Parliament imposes a statutory obligation on a local authority, the authority turns round and says, "Parliament has placed a statutory burden on us. We therefore are entitled to be recompensed for that burden by central, taxpayers' funds." Thus, local authorities' incentive to carry out such work as cost effectively as possible disappears, and we end up with extra burdens, more costs and not an iota of progress towards promoting energy efficiency in the housing stock.

Mr. Beith: If the Minister cannot remember the advice of Sir Crispin Tickell, or if it was not passed on to him, perhaps he can remember the advice of Lord Moore, our former colleague John Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust, who said:
The Trust strongly supports the primary aim of the Bill, which is to place an obligation on all district and borough councils to create an energy use profile of the dwellings within their area".
That advice comes from one of the bodies to which the Government look for advice on energy saving. Why is the Minister ignoring it?

Mr. Baldry: We do not believe that the Bill, with the burdens that it places on local authorities and its costs for taxpayers, is necessary, or that it merits those costs. In an article last week the right hon. Gentleman said that, at a conservative estimate, the outline costs of the Bill's energy audits would be between £11 million and £20 million—money which will not further our knowledge of energy efficiency in the housing stock. It could certainly be better used in other ways.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is the Minister aware that Sir Crispin Tickell and I worked on many projects together when he was permanent secretary at the Overseas Development Administration and when he was this country's United Nations ambassador based in New York? Since then he has become the principal of Green college in Oxford. It therefore surprises me greatly to learn that, if he is a great supporter of the Bill, he has not been in touch with his friends in this place to tell us of his support. I believe that if he really did support the Bill he would have come here to talk to the many people with whom he has worked over the years.

Mr. Baldry: As my hon. Friend says, Sir Crispin has made an impressive contribution to environmental causes in this country.
The Audit Commission's responsibilities for scrutinising the accounts of local authorities have been extended—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I accept my hon. Friend's point that the Bill places an obligation on local authorities which could be unduly bureaucratic, but many Conservative Members feel that it is time we took some

firm action, because it has been 20 or 30 years since we started discussing all this. It has been 20 years since the Government's "Save It" campaign, for instance. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to consider how much has been saved since that campaign was begun. The Rio commitments fall due in the year 2000, and we are getting pretty close to that date.

Mr. Baldry: One of the frequent failings in debates on conservation is always to assume that nothing has happened to date. A great deal has happened, and the Government's initiatives have already led to considerable energy savings. Britain now produces 25 per cent. more national wealth than it did in 1979 but it is not consuming any more energy. In the intervening years there have been great strides in the promotion of energy efficiency, and we are determined to carry on with that. As I have said, we were one of the first countries to make clear its commitment to how it would meet the international commitment to reduce CO2 emissions and stabilise them at 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are determined to do that.
10 am
The Bill is being presented as if it is the only measure that will stand between us and meeting those targets, and that is ludicrous. The Bill will place extra bureaucratic responsibilities and burdens on local authorities and extra costs on taxpayers. But it will not necessarily advance by one iota the cause of energy efficiency or contribute anything more to our knowledge about the energy efficiency or otherwise of our housing stock.

Mr. Dafis: It is tiresome of the Minister to talk all the time about bureaucratic burdens. How will an audit constitute a bureaucratic burden? He speaks about what he calls the great burden of surveying all properties, but he knows that that can be done by sampling. There is every reason for including private property in such a survey, bearing in mind that at least 70 per cent. of property is owner-occupied and that much of it is owned by fairly poor people, is in bad condition and in need of energy efficiency work.
Why on earth should local authorities not include in a cost-efficient survey the whole of the housing stock to facilitate the process afterwards of conducting a comprehensive and thorough energy efficiency programme? That has everything to be said for it, and that is why a whole range of bodies, including local authorities and the Association of County Councils, support the Bill and the process.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has been involved with the Bill for some time and what he says is interesting. He says that the audit need not be of the entire housing stock or any proportion of it, but a sample. Perhaps in this debate we need to consider what constitutes a representative sample. The hon. Gentleman says that the proposal need not be a regulatory burden, but what constitutes a representative sample of the private housing stock—that which is not in the ownership and control of local authorities?
The work cannot be undertaken without going into people's homes. One would need to look at the way in which the homes are insulated, whether the lofts are insulated and whether the pipes and hot water tanks, in the homes that have them, are lagged. One needs to consider also whether the homes have wall insulation and the type and efficiency of boilers.
It is being slightly disingenuous to suggest that that can be done without putting an obligation and an extra burden on local authorities. The House would need to consider whether that can be done by random sampling. Random sampling of local authority and private sector stock is rather less than what happens at the moment because, as I have said, we expect that local authorities as a matter of course are already carrying out surveys as part of their natural housing investment programme.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) spoke about private housing. The one measure which should ensure that every householder will look to the energy efficiency of his home is our imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. The Conservative party is the only party which has had the courage to do that, and we did it despite the fact that at different times both opposition parties opposed it. The party of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Bill's proposer, referred to the anomaly of zero-rated domestic fuel. We had the courage to impose that tax in support of promoting energy efficiency. The other parties reneged on it and ran away from their responsibility.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important point that is a constant source of irritation to my constituents when they realise the truth. No new tax is greeted with popularity, and VAT on fuel was a classic case. We have had the debates and got the compensation package. Yet people get really irritated when they understand the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrat party in having first suggested the tax and proposing it for energy efficiency schemes, and then running away from it when the tax was applied. It then tried to hide energy efficiency levies under the cloak of the Bill.
The Bill has a good title but through the back door will impose extra council tax burdens on constituents such as mine. That is not the proper way to go. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that he shares that view?

Mr. Baldry: It will be interesting to hear how the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed puts into context the history of the Liberal party's approach to VAT on fuel. In terms, the Liberal Democrats said that it was anomalous for domestic fuel to be zero-rated and it was time that the anomaly was dealt with. As I have said, we have dealt with that anomaly: ours is the only party which has had the courage to do it. Imposing VAT on domestic fuel will be a considerable spur to every householder to look to the energy efficiency of his home, because the more efficient it is the less the householder will pay in fuel bills. It is a win-win situation because when people make their homes more efficient they make a greater contribution to the environment and also save money.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister stop being economical with the truth and admit that my party has never argued for the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? We have consistently been in favour of a carbon energy tax. The argument in the document that was put to us by a working group was that, if that was not done, VAT on domestic fuel should be considered. We rejected that argument, continuing with the policy of a carbon energy tax. Will the Minister kindly get the facts right?

Mr. Baldry: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that his party said that the zero rating of domestic fuel was anomalous. He has freely and readily

acknowledged that the Liberal Democrats wanted and were prepared to tax energy. As I have said several times, ours is the only party which had the courage to bring forward VAT on energy. The opportunist Opposition parties claim to be in favour of greater energy efficiency, but when measures are taken to promote it they vote against them.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: If courage is to be equated with hurting the poor and the elderly, the Government have indeed been courageous. Will the Minister treat the House with some seriousness? I am a new Member, and I served on the Committee. I have learnt that amendments are moved mainly in Committee. Why is the Minister moving so many amendments today so late in the Bill's proceedings? Will he come clean and tell us whether it is the Government's intention to kill the Bill?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not paid any attention to the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist vulnerable people with their heating bills: he has extended help to everyone on income support and to every pensioner. Moreover, this year we have almost doubled the amount of money being spent on the home energy efficiency scheme. This year some 250,000 households will be assisted with loft insulation, draught proofing and energy advice. That is in addition to the 500,000 homes that have already been covered in that way.
We made clear on Second Reading our concerns about the Bill and made no bones about it. I earnestly hoped that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would deal with them after Second Reading. He has not done so, and it is right and proper for the House to consider them in some detail. I hope that we will deal with them today; if we can, the Bill will doubtless make progress.

Mr. Dafis: The Minister presents value added tax on domestic fuel as an environmental tax, but the Paymaster General stated in European Standing Committee B that the tax was a revenue-raising measure, and that is on the record. If it is an environmental tax, the proceeds should be recycled into measures that enhance and strengthen the purpose of the tax—energy efficiency measures. The proceeds will amount to more than £2 billion. How does that compare with the increase in Government funding for the home energy efficiency scheme?

Mr. Baldry: I never cease to be amazed by the cant of members of some Opposition parties. For a long time Opposition Members wrote learned journals, publications and pamphlets on energy efficiency.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave us the history and analysis of the Liberal Democrat approach to a carbon tax. There have been weasel words about what the Opposition parties—including Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh nationalists—did or did not say about VAT on domestic fuel. At different times the parties all drew attention to the fact that it seemed somewhat curious for any Government who wished to promote energy efficiency to continue to zero-rate domestic fuel.
However, by their own admission, we have gathered today that, whatever the Opposition parties said about VAT on fuel, they are in favour of a carbon tax because they must square their views with how they present


themselves to their electors. Mysteriously they have all been transformed overnight. They were concerned about VAT on fuel and now they want a carbon tax.
What does the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North think that a carbon tax is if it is not a revenue-raising fiscal measure? Taxes raise money; that is their nature. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would argue that, even within his terms of reference, such a tax is a way for the Government to increase the cost of fuel and thus to prompt businesses and people to be more energy efficient and to consider their energy bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been tolerant during this debate, but hon. Members are going rather wide of the subject. If they stick to the new clause, we may make some progress.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Minister, who moved the new clause, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is in charge of the Bill, agree that the new clause should be accepted, instead of this general debate, which, as you pointed out, is getting close to being out of order, would it not be better to accept the new clause and move on to the second group of amendments selected? It might be easier for us to have a wide-ranging debate on the commencement order. If the Government want to make progress, the Minister should sit down so that we can vote on the new clause.

Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no further matter to be dealt with yet because I have not dealt with the point of order. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) knows, the Minister's speech is a matter for him and he must decide on its length and what he says in it, provided that it is in order. The Government Front-Bench team will no doubt have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) realises that I oppose the new clause—I hoped that I had made it clear in my intervention—which seems to be hopelessly bureaucratic and would be extremely expensive for taxpayers in north Hertfordshire.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The debate is going rather wide, and hon. Members will be near to filibustering if they are not careful.

Mr. Baldry: I have to deal with four new clauses and 10 amendments. In fairness, as Hansard will demonstrate—I will certainly be prepared to be judged by what is in the record—all my remarks during the past quarter of an hour have been in response to interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My comments about filibustering were not aimed only at the Minister, as there have been contributions of that type throughout the debate.

Mr. Baldry: I did not intend to filibuster. If for some strange reason Opposition Members want to do so by intervening, they will have to square that with the proposer of the Bill. I am trying to make progress.
As I was saying, the first amendment relates to people's access to local authority plans. I was explaining how there is a general presumption of trying to make local authorities more open. The Audit Commission's responsibilities for examining and scrutinising the accounts of local authorities have been extended and, under the Local Government Act 1992, the commission has been charged with directing local authorities on the performance indicators on which they should report.
10.15 am
The 1992 Act placed a similar responsibility on the Accounts Commission for local authorities in Scotland. The first directions have already been given. When the results become available at the end of the year the information collected will allow the production of valuable comparative data on the performance and efficiency of local authorities and will cover a wide range of functions.
Auditors also have new powers to issue public interest reports on aspects of their findings. The accountability and performance of local authorities is greatly enhanced by the production of comparative data. For example, people can contrast and compare how much local authorities charge in council tax for a certain band, which is very helpful. People know that Conservative-controlled councils charge £118 less for a band D dwelling than Labour-controlled councils.
In common with all public authorities, local government is required to ensure freedom of access to and dissemination of information on the environment. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities must provide public access to registers giving information about industrial processes in their area which could cause significant pollution to air, land and water. One of the great advantages of that Act was that it considerably increased the amount of information available to the public about the environmental impact of activities in their area. That is to be welcomed.

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the occupant of the Chair if the Minister and any other hon. Member would say what amendment they are referring to before they make a point.

Mr. Taylor: I agree, but when Madam Speaker rightly simplifies matters by grouping so many amendments together it is sometimes difficult to relate one's remarks to each amendment as opposed to the generality.
The Minister made an interesting remark about comparable information. Citizens increasingly require information about their local authority's efficiency on energy and other matters. That information should be available to the public. Have the Government taken any initiatives under the compulsory competitive tendering legislation to require local authorities to put their energy efficiency savings schemes out to tender?

Mr. Baldry: Shortly, local authorities will have to expose housing management to compulsory competitive tendering because that function, as with any other activity, is best delivered when exposed to competition. All the evidence to date is that substantial savings can be made by


exposing services to competition. Savings of between 7 per cent. and 20 per cent. have been made on services across the range of local authority functions. That money is actually saved and local authorities can reinvest it to the benefit of their council tax payers and the community.
I am seeking to speak to the group of amendments, not just to new clause 1, because I am conscious of the fact that there are a number of amendments and that the House wants to make progress. That is why I am commenting as comprehensively as possible.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I apologise for pursuing this point, but it is critical. My hon. Friend the Minister said that considerable savings could be made by the tendering of housing accounts. Would it not be better to require local authorities to use those savings for increased energy efficiency in their housing stock rather than apply bureaucratic measures such as those in the Bill?

Mr. Baldry: Absolutely. One hopes that local authorities seek, as a matter of course, to make their housing stock as energy efficient as possible. Each year they receive substantial capital funding to invest in their housing stock. In addition, there are numerous estate action schemes, under which half a million homes have been improved over the past few years. All that money should be used to make local authority housing stock more energy efficient.
Local authorities such as Newark, Sherwood and Derby, when under Conservative control, have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible for local authorities to do that, without requiring such legislation. All this measure does is to place an extra bureaucratic burden on local authorities generally and to impose extra costs on taxpayers.
In common with all public authorities, local authorities are required to ensure freedom of access to and dissemination of information on the environment that they hold. That has considerably enhanced the public's understanding of environmental measures. Against that, local authorities generally already have a well-established culture of openness. We believe that most will have little difficulty in adopting the further proposals set out in the open government code of practice. It is designed to promote and inform policy making and debate and efficient service delivery; provide timely and accessible information to the citizen; explain Government policies, actions and decisions; and restrict access to information only when there are good reasons in the public interest or to protect personal or commercial confidentiality.
The code seeks to achieve that by volunteering more information on facts and analysis of facts that the Government consider relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions; providing explanatory material, including internal guidance on dealing with the public and guidance on rules and procedures except where exempted; explaining reasons for administrative decisions to those affected, except where exempted; and providing citizens charter information on standards of service, targets, objectives and performance audited against such standards.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that it is important to apply those principles to energy conservation plans. It will be important for the public to be able to see the final plan so that they may know how it affects the area in which they live and their own homes. Other plans prepared by local authorities, such as those relating to development and

waste recycling, are open to inspection by the public. It is important that development plans should be open to inspection. Authorities would need similar powers in relation to energy conservation plans.
Similarly, powers are needed to enable local authorities to supply copies of plans and to charge for them. There is no reason why members of the public should not be able to buy copies of the finished plan, modifications to the plan and documents relating to it. By making those documents available for sale, authorities would help to spread the message that energy efficiency is important and something in which everyone can play a part.
The educational role that such plans could have should not be forgotten. They could be used by schools to educate children about the importance of energy efficiency and they, in turn, could inform their parents. It is for local authorities to decide the scale of charges for plans, modifications and related documents. However, I am sure that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have powers to fix charges, should the need arise.
I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support new clause 6, which the Government have tabled to ensure that plans are made available for inspection by the public. I urge them to support also new clause 4, which would give authorities a power to supply copies of plans and to make such charges as they consider appropriate.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, although reference may be made to new clause 6 and other new clauses, they have not been selected for a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will have to consider that matter as debate proceeds.

Mr. Baldry: The House should be clear that my comments seek to cover the first group selected by Madam Speaker. It comprises new clause 1, new clauses 4 to 6, and amendments Nos. 50, 209, 216, 210, 188, 211, 214, 215, 212 and 189. I am attempting to be as expeditious as possible. I hope that Hansard and the House will note that, in relation to two important new clauses, I spoke no longer than one sentence on each. That provoked a point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, who has not even taken the time and trouble to study the groups determined by the Chair.

Mr. Peter Butler: My hon. Friend's brevity is always legendary on these occasions, and ample. There appears to be some contradiction between new clauses 4, 5 and 6 and new clause 1 in relation to the protection of economic information that will permit interests to seek to supply loft insulation and other energy conservation measures to the authority or householder. New clauses 4, 5 and 6 propose a charge, so that if suppliers are to make a profit, that information should be provided at their expense and not at that of council tax payers by recouping some of the cost of preparing the plan. New clause 1 appears to alter that. Will my hon. Friend comment?

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may assist the Chair. The first group of amendments includes new clauses 1, 4, 5 and 6. I assume that we are debating new clause 6, the wording of which is:

"(1) An energy conservation authority may"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a statement of the obvious. I am worried that the House appears to be bordering on filibustering. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will cut it out.

Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I heard you say that you were not certain that new clause 6 was included in the first group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I said that, he is mistaken.

Mr. Baldry: I hope that I made it clear that, in dealing as expeditiously as I could with the new clauses, I had chosen to approach them as a group—and I spoke only one sentence each on new clauses 6 and 4. As to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), I do not see any contradiction. In general good practice, if local authorities are collecting information, it should be available to the general public —but in certain instances local authorities should have the ability to charge for that information. If my hon. Friend identifies a contradiction, doubtless he will draw it to the attention of the House in due course.

Mr. David Nicholson: While we are dealing with the question of expedition, if it is in order, will my hon. Friend say how many amendments the Government sought to table when the Bill was considered in Committee? While we all appreciate that the wheels of government grind slowly, possibly far too slowly for so many purposes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has that got to do with the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing? My patience is getting a bit thin now. I repeat what I have said twice earlier. The debate is bordering on a filibuster, and the Chair will not tolerate that.

Mr. Baldry: Support for new clause 1 would complete the package by providing a power for the Secretary of State to fix charges. I consider that this package of amendments would be preferable to new clause 5, which would give authorities a power to supply copies of plans and make charges that do not exceed the cost to the authority of providing the service concerned.
Having dealt with the whole question of public access, I turn now to the matter of consultation, because it also arises within this group of amendments. Hon. Members will know that the Government fully understand the intention behind the proposal that authorities should consult widely when preparing statements or plans that require action by the authorities or others. It is fully in line with the Government's intention for more open government, which I have just explained. The Government see no need, however, for such consultation to be laid down as a formal duty and thereby increase the length of the Bill and the potential costs.
To do so and to combine that with a list of individuals and organisations that must be consulted has two undesirable side effects that need to be considered: first, that money might have to be spent on formally consulting organisations or individuals who have already recently made it clear that they do not wish to make any comment. That is wasteful of council tax payers' money. Secondly,

by implication, it means that organisations which wish to comment but which are not identified in the list may find it difficult to have their input taken into account.
We believe that it is far more sensible to leave the arrangements for consultation on the plans to the authorities concerned. It should be up to them to choose the organisations that they wish to consult so that they may carry out the consultation in a cost-effective way. No useful purpose would be served by imposing those duties on authorities, which will, I am sure, make a much better job if allowed to arrange consultation in the most appropriate way according to their local needs and circumstances.
Local authorities are no strangers to consultation when it comes to housing matters. Every year, every local authority in England must draw up a housing investment programme, and pretty well every local authority, as part of that process, now sensibly consults local tenants and residents' groups. They certainly do not need any statutory injunction to do that. They do so, quite rightly, as a matter of course and good practice.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is an attempt on the face of the Bill to have an exhaustive list of consultees, there is always a danger of missing somebody or some organisation off that list? Will not those people perhaps take umbrage that they have been overlooked? There is always a cost in consultations, and nowhere on Second Reading or in Committee was any reference made to the cost implications of consulting all those bodies.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend tellingly underlines and re-emphasises the point that I have just made. It is a sensible point, because there is no useful purpose in imposing unnecessary statutory burdens on local authorities which incur greater cost. There is a need for Parliament and Government to exercise great restraint in imposing new duties and burdens on local government, particularly when they entail additional spending for local authorities and tax payers. Generally, there are no spare resources in life, and to impose burdens, as set out in clause 2(5) and clause 2(6) of the Bill, obviously has implications for services in other areas for which local authorities have responsibilities.
As I made clear on Second Reading, one of our concerns, despite our enthusiasm for energy efficiency, is costs. As it stands, the Bill would have spending implications for local authorities and central Government. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who proposes the Bill, has circulated figures showing how much it might cost local authorities to set up a database on the condition of housing stock in their authorities. If those costings were replicated by other local authorities, the cost of setting up databases across the United Kingdom—just setting them up, no more and no less—could be between some £11 million and £23 million.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because he is saying that extra levels of bureaucracy are required by the Bill over and above the commitments that the local authorities already have. Would it not be better for them to concentrate, for example, on their obligations under building regulations SI 1991/2768, where grants can be provided under the home energy efficiency scheme? Such things have practical benefits for


the housing stock and also for the residents in it rather than putting on top new layers of bureaucracy that are likely to cost more, for nobody's benefit at all.

Mr. Baldry: The point cannot be made during the course of today with too great an emphasis. We expect local authorities to try to ensure that their housing stock is maintained and kept in a way that is as energy efficient as possible. We expect them to carry out, as part of their housing duties, a regular stock condition of their housing and to seek to use the considerable sums of money that they have available to invest in ensuring that it is as energy efficient as possible.
In addition, many people, including council tenants and home owners, who are on vulnerable means, have access to schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which, this year alone, is likely to help some 250,000 households. It would be far better for local authorities to spend their time and energy in promoting the home energy efficiency scheme and energy conservation in their own stock rather than having this extra burden placed on them by Parliament.
It is interesting to note that the calculated £23 million—at the very minimum—of unnecessary spending that the Bill would provoke could provide grants for 123,000 homes under the home energy efficiency scheme. But, of course, it is quite possible that those costs would not be representative of those incurred elsewhere. It is almost certainly the case that the calculations understate the costs that would be incurred by others, because the two local authorities prayed in aid by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have obviously taken a particular interest in promoting energy efficiency. One of them already has the necessary computer hardware, software and trained staff, so the costings that have been put forward are very much the most optimistic costings that could possibly be devised. But, more importantly, those costs are only part—probably a small part—of the costs that would be involved in carrying forward the Bill.
In addition, local authorities would have to bear the costs of preparing draft plans, consultation, preparing final plans and keeping the plans up to date. The House will note that, in all of that, not one jot or iota of further improvement to the energy efficiency of any home will be carried out.

Mr. Beith: The Minister's prolonged discourse has already gone on for more than an hour. In Committee, the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Atkins), said:
this should be permissive legislation, encouraging councils to undertake such expenditure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 19.]
It was the Government's policy that councils should spend the money in that way.

Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening to what I have said. Today is a rather curious day. I am occasionally chastised for trying to explain matters to the House as concisely as possible, but when I do that, it is clear that hon. Members do not listen to what I say. Throughout the debate so far, in speaking to the new clause and the associated new clauses and amendments, I have said that we already expect local authorities as a matter of course to maintain their housing stock with as high an energy efficiency as possible.
However, we do not see any need to impose a further statutory burden on them. It would not enhance the work that they are already doing in any way but would simply put extra burdens on local authorities and extra costs on the taxpayers. That money could be far better spent on promoting energy efficiency in other ways.
We have already issued guidance to local authorities asking them to collect information about the energy efficiency of housing in their areas as part of the process of preparing housing investment programmes. Indeed, we expect them to undertake that every year. Not only local government would face extra costs as a result of the Bill; central Government, too, would face additional spending.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State to set a date by which all plans should be sent to him and to set a timetable for the implementation of plans. It would require funds to be provided by Parliament. As Parliament would place a statutory duty on local authorities, they would expect that new burden to be funded by central Government through the standard spending assessment mechanism. So the Bill would place extra burdens on local authorities and certainly represent extra costs to taxpayers in general.
As hon. Members will know, we are keen not to place burdens on local authorities. The local authority associations constantly make representations to Ministers not to place further burdens on them unless it is unavoidable. We are worried that the provisions of the Bill will impose unnecessary burdens. It is perfectly clear already from the debate that many local authorities follow good practice in energy efficiency without Parliament placing extra burdens on them.
Many local authorities are already doing a great deal to improve energy efficiency. Some 250 local authorities have agreed to sign up to my Department's "Making a corporate commitment" campaign. Many local authorities are also taking steps to improve domestic energy efficiency. My Department encourages such steps. Local authorities already spend about a quarter of their council house repair and improvement budgets on energy-related work such as new heating systems. Better outputs can be obtained by applying the lessons of my Department's green house demonstration programme.
The green house programme was launched in 1990 to establish a network of energy efficiency projects to show local authorities in England how the energy efficiency of council housing could be improved. Some 180 schemes in 130 local authorities have been undertaken over three years. Results are encouraging, with schemes achieving fuel cost reductions of up to 40 per cent. and carbon dioxide reductions of up to 50 per cent.
Drawing on experiences gained from the green house programme, last year we asked local authorities to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes. Interim guidance was issued last June and further guidance is planned. A key element of that guidance is that local authorities should survey their housing stock to establish its energy rating as part of devising an energy efficiency strategy for inclusion in their overall housing investment strategy.

Mr. Butler: Most of the programmes that my hon. Friend has referred to—specifically those to which he referred in his last few sentences—refer to local authorities' housing stock. One of the difficulties of the Bill is that it places a statutory duty on local authorities to


prepare a scheme for all the residential accommodation in their area. They have no right of entry to such accommodation. Does my hon. Friend envisage that local authorities will be able to prepare such a scheme for property to which they do not have the right of entry that they have to their housing stock?

Mr. Dafis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your judgment on whether we are discussing the new clauses and amendments in the group?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are, because, if we were not, speeches would be ruled out of order.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) makes a reasonable point. It is a point which needs to be returned to from time to time during today's debate. The Bill purports to have far wider application than merely to local authorities' housing stocks. It is unclear from some of the interventions from Opposition Members whether the duty is to audit a random number of houses in the private sector or to audit every house.
Even if one could overcome the problems of right of entry, which will undoubtedly have to be discussed in the context of the Bill, once the local authority had carried out the audit, it would have no power to order or carry out any energy efficiency work in those homes. As I said earlier, we are the only party which has had the courage to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. That is a far greater spur to all householders to consider how they can make their homes more energy efficient. The work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having the courage to introduce VAT on domestic fuel will do far more to promote energy efficiency than any of the Bills before the House.
Part of the reason why Opposition parties need to promote Bills such as this is that they have to square the fact—

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to go over again and again the courage or whatever of the Government in introducing VAT on domestic fuel? Are we not getting near tedious repetition?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am taking note of what the Minister says. So far, he has been in order, but he was straying a little in his last few remarks.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order that my hon. Friend the Minister should underline the point constantly, given that the Liberal Democrat party is trying to hide behind the Bill to disguise its original intentions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided that it is not tedious repetition.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher makes exactly the point that I was about to make, so I shall not repeat it. He makes it tellingly.
Existing legislation enables authorities to do a great deal of what is proposed in the Bill. We should allow them to use those powers. We should not insist that all authorities follow precisely the same path when that may not be appropriate to their circumstances.
We are also keen to avoid unnecessary regulation. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is seeking to remove unnecessary controls. We are determined not to introduce new and unnecessary controls as fast as the old ones are destroyed.
Of course, Conservative Members know that energy efficiency is a win-win situation. It saves money and helps to save the planet. We are committed to our policies to encourage it. We also know that local authorities have an important role to play. However, we have some serious concerns about the Bill, which we have made clear to its sponsors. We are worried that the Bill would impose additional and unnecessary burdens on local authorities and central Government and would hinder efforts to control public spending.
As I said on Second Reading, I hoped that those concerns would be carefully considered by the sponsors, but that was not to be. We have tabled amendments to ensure that our concerns are considered. We hope that they will be met before the Bill makes progress.

Mr. Beith: As the Minister has spoken for an hour and a quarter and no doubt has further hour-and-a-quarter speeches ready to be made, I shall speak briefly to set one or two things right.
The first thing that I want to put right is my willingness to accept new clause 1. I should have thought that that would shorten the Minister's remarks considerably. Indeed, I have no particular objection—except to their number—to most of the new clauses and amendments in the group.
I object to amendment No. 50, which would remove any obligation to consult. It seems strange that, while the Government impose other obligations, they say at the same time that local authorities should not have to consult any of the organisations mentioned in the Bill. That point has already been drawn to the Minister's attention by Conservative Members.
I do not believe that we would be discussing this group of amendments if the Government had done their job properly in Committee, where they tabled only five amendments and did so too late for them to be considered. Many of the amendments that we are considering today make what hon. Members would regard as Committee points. The Government are adopting a new strategy of ignoring a Bill's Committee stage because holding amendments back for Report increases their opportunities to delay and block Bills. At some point, the Procedure Committee may wish to consider that practice.

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I shall not allow many interventions because my speech will be brief.
One is bound to ask how much staff time the Parliamentary Counsel Office devoted to the preparation of so many amendments. I should point out that all the amendments, including those in the names of other hon. Members rather than the Government, came on the same sheets of paper, printed by the same process, from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. More than 50 amendments


appear in the name of the Secretary of State. It is unusual for the Government so directly to filibuster a Bill rather than to get somebody else to do their dirty work.

Mr. Moss: The proceedings of the Standing Committee were completed in just under two hours. As far as I can see, no amendments were tabled by the Bill's supporters. I piloted a private Member's Bill through the House, with Government support—the Osteopaths Bill—and a massive number of amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that his Bill is so perfect that it cannot stand the scrutiny afforded by the tabling of amendments?

Mr. Beith: I expected the Government to suggest improvements. Unfortunately, the only amendments that they tabled in Committee attempted to exclude Northern Ireland and Scotland from the Bill, and I could not accept them. I hoped that they would table some of the amendments that we are debating today, which I am able to accept and which I encourage hon. Members to support. The Committee stage was brief because the Government did not table amendments.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I shall proceed.
The amendments would all increase requirements on local authorities. They sit strangely with the Government's view that no further requirements should be placed on local authorities. The essence of the Government's general case is that local authorities should not have the burden of the Bill imposed on them, yet the Government amendments would make that burden more complex, albeit not in undesirable ways.
As part of their argument for the new clauses, the Government say that local authorities should have to apply the Bill's procedures only to their housing stock and not to other housing stock. It is a strange doctrine for the Government now to say that local authorities should be concerned only with the energy efficiency of local authority housing when, as a result of Government policies, local authority housing is a minority and declining part of the national housing stock. Some local authorities have no housing stock because, with the Government's full blessing, their stock has been sold or is managed by housing associations. The Government must recognise that local authority housing will be a small part of the overall future stock, and any organisation playing a large part in trying to promote energy efficiency must look far beyond it.

Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: This will be the last intervention that I shall allow.

Mr. Butler: The concern of many hon. Members, which the right hon. Gentleman shares, is that an energy conservation Bill should work and not simply have a pretty title. The issue is how the Bill will be enforced if it is extended to homes not within the ownership or tenancy of a local authority.

Mr. Beith: In the same way as authorities collect information in the housing conditions survey, and with the co-operation of bodies such as housing associations, which are large property owners. The proposed mechanism has

been tried and, furthermore, the Government encourage its use. The paradox of the Government's position this morning is that they have said throughout that they believe that energy conservation is desirable and energy audits are worth while and that their only concern is that local authorities will be required to carry out the work, yet local authorities want the obligation: they prefer to get on with something that is a statutory obligation. It is now quite difficult for local government to meet non-statutory duties when the financial pressures are on meeting statutory duties. That is why energy conservation needs to be a statutory duty.
All energy conservation organisations and numerous organisations representing elderly, handicapped and poor people are in favour the Bill. More than 400 hon. Members have indicated their support for it, including at least one who has tabled amendments to it today.
The Government would not be moving the new clauses or other amendments if the Bill were entirely permissive. That has been their line throughout, but there would be no point in introducing an entirely permissive Bill as local authorities already have such powers. They want a statutory framework to ensure that energy-conserving measures are taken everywhere. We have the information on which to base cost-effective energy efficiency investment to keep vulnerable people warm and to save energy that is otherwise wasted, and the Bill is a recognised mechanism for making the investment.
If the Government persist with the tactics that they are employing today, they will do something that the Prime Minister has condemned. On 25 January, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Almost everybody is in favour of environmental objectives in principle, but it is no use whatsoever being in favour if you then oppose the practice that is actually carrying out those principles.
According to the judgment of most of those concerned, the Bill would implement that practice.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I said that I would not take any more interventions; I want the debate to proceed. Let the House be in no doubt that I am quite willing to accept the new clause so that we can get on and ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book.

Mr. Heald: I find myself in some difficulty with the first group of amendments. I should like to oppose new clause 1, but if it is passed I should want to support new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which are related to it. Otherwise, I generally support the amendments in the group that stand in my name or those of my hon. Friends and which share the same thrust.
New clause 1 requires that a local authority
shall, at all reasonable times and free of charge, make available at its principal offices for inspection by members of the public a copy of
the plan.
A local authority should be under a duty to ensure that its housing stock is energy efficient, but that duty should not extend to private properties of owner-occupiers. If an authority were responsible purely for its own stock, there would be no need or requirement for members of the public to be able to inspect the plan. It is difficult, therefore, to see what the purpose of new clause 1 would be.
I understand that a plan is not prepared for improvements such as the installation of central heating or


double glazing and therefore is not open to inspection by the general public, so the bureaucracy and costs of having such a facility available are not incurred. A councillor playing the important and independent role of representing his electors can be relied on to ensure that plans prepared for an authority's housing stock are sensible.
My concern is that under new clause 1 members of the public could obtain plans free of charge. The new clauses standing in my name would allow a charge to be made, because it is only right that the costs of such a facility should not fall on council tax payers. The council tax in Conservative-controlled north Hertfordshire has been maintained at £61 this year, compared to £131 in the neighbouring Labour-controlled borough of Stevenage, partly because value for money and ensuring that unreasonable burdens are not placed on the taxpayer are at the forefront of that Conservative authority's thinking and policy.
I oppose the idea but, if such a scheme is to be provided, there should be a reasonable charge. I support new clause 6 which states that, although there should be a charge, it should not be a profit-making exercise. The charge should be the cost to the council of providing that facility.
As I said, I am in the difficult position of opposing new clause 1, because it is over-bureaucratic and would impose an unacceptable burden on local authorities, but supporting new clauses 4, 5 and 6. It will be difficult for me, and for my hon. Friends who agree with that line of thinking, to decide how to vote because those clauses are grouped together.

11 am

Mr. Butler: Is there not an analogy with the case of someone seeking to purchase a house in an area who has to pay for the searches conducted to discover other relevant information relating to the title of the property? Under the new clause, that person would be able to obtain free of charge valuable information about a property's energy efficiency. Should not that person be prepared to pay for that valuable information?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out something that occurs throughout the Bill. Individuals are arguably being given costly rights with no provision being made for the costs imposed on the local council tax payer. As far as I can see, there is no method of meeting the costs imposed on the local council tax payer. Elsewhere in the Bill, my hon. Friend will have noted that the costs incurred by the Secretary of State will rightly be provided for. However, the local authority's costs would clearly lie with the council tax payer.
Clause 2 would impose a duty on every local energy conservation authority to carry out an investigation or to decide, in preparing a plan, what modifications are necessary by the private householder. If such a duty were imposed, a local council tax payer in that area would be able to have his property surveyed for energy efficiency at a cost of about £400, which the authority would have to pay.

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I was a member of the Energy Select Committee, we investigated energy efficiency and visited the National Energy Foundation in Milton Keynes, which promotes a

scheme of energy audit on a private basis for individuals. If such a scheme is to be available through the local authority, paid for by council tax payers, will it not undermine the excellent work of such organisations?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out something that had not occurred to me but which is important. Britain leads the world in private sector energy auditing. British companies are now going to the Soviet Union and elsewhere to sell those services, in which they have a particular expertise. The Bill would enable a householder to ask to have his house audited for free and to be provided with all the resulting information. That request would be legally enforceable and would undercut the private sector. Many businesses which are currently thriving and which have spent considerable sums on research and development would be unable to continue because their home base would have been undermined.

Mr. Butler: I believe that the problem is worse than that. The Bill would place a duty on an authority to prepare an audit for
the residential accommodation in its area".
A person who lives in a house where the heating system heats the draughts on their way in so that they go out warmer but fails to heat the house in general could demand an energy audit. If the local authority refused, that person could take it to court for breach of its statutory duty and get certiorari and mandamus against it, telling it to fulfil its duty.

Mr. Heald: Certiorari is part of the system of judicial review and could require the council under mandamus to take the action required under the Bill. People who possibly belong to pressure groups and support the idea of energy conservation in the home but do not want to pay for it would be able to argue in the High Court that a local authority had not carried out an energy audit. An order could be obtained and the authority might be liable for any losses incurred by the householder from the time the council should have acted to the time it finally acted under the order. Therefore, the Bill could have substantial legal consequences.

Mr. Ian Taylor: In view of my hon. Friend's talk of legal proceedings and judicial reviews, I am becoming rather worried that he has failed to disclose an interest as a lawyer. Surely the Bill cuts across the Government's considerable efforts under the home energy efficiency programme and local government's green house programme to try to persuade people to upgrade their own property voluntarily. The Bill also ignores the fact that the Government waived the reasonable contribution that people, especially those on income support and other benefits, previously had to make to the cost of upgrading their own homes. The House should be encouraging such programmes, not bureaucratic nonsense such as that in the Bill.

Mr. Heald: I pay tribute to the Select Committee on the Environment which, in a report issued last November, called for the expansion of the Government's home energy efficiency scheme, and to the Chancellor for doubling the money available. Under the scheme, 250,000 of the poorest homes will benefit from energy efficiency measures this year, and a total of 440,000 per annum will eventually be improved. Improvements are being carried out on the homes that need them most and those occupied by people


who are probably already receiving help with VAT. The scheme provides the added advantage of meeting the cost of heating the home. I therefore agree that the home energy efficiency scheme is most important, and I certainly argued for the doubling of the funding before the Chancellor obliged. I know that a number of my hon. Friends were also keen advocates.
Clause 2(5) and (6) state that, in preparing plans and modifications, authorities must consult
every parish or community council and any other local authority in its area
and any other commercial and community bodies. Such efforts at consultation are objectionable for three basic reasons. First, this part of the Bill is mere window dressing and tries to promote as reasonable and democratic proposals that are unreasonable and undemocratic—in other words, it attempts to give an acceptable face to something that is unacceptable. Secondly, such consultation would serve no purpose and, thirdly, it is unnecessarily bureaucratic.
The Bill is profoundly worrying. Much has been made of the fact that Committee stage was brief. It has been suggested that, because it was a speedy and efficient Committee stage, there can have been nothing wrong with the Bill. However, I am shocked that a Standing Committee should have allowed the Bill in this form to complete that stage unamended in two hours. Of course, it might have been because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and I were considering the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and therefore unavailable for selection to the Committee stage of this Bill. Whatever the reason, the Committee did not do its duty. It did not consider amendments—

Mr. Beith: The Government did not table amendments.

Mr. Heald: I hear a sedentary intervention from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the promoter of the Bill. Sedentary interventions, are, of course, not permitted.

Mr. Beith: What was the Parliamentary Counsel Office doing? If it could think of 219 ways in which the Bill could be improved, why did it not put them before the Committee? The Committee can consider only the amendments tabled and selected.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, although he is wrong. He is the promoter of the Bill and he was a member of the Committee with other hon. Members, many of whom supported the Bill. Yet they have come out with an unsatisfactory mish-mash.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said in Committee on 16 February:
The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.]
That is exactly what is happening.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) for making that point. He and I have both taken up the invitation and have tabled a considerable number of amendments. It is a bit rich for the right hon. Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed now to complain, especially as he seems to be conceding that the Standing Committee was in dereliction of its duty.

Mr. Moss: I addressed that question to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and he did not answer it. As he was the promoter of the Bill, I would not ask him to have tabled massive numbers of amendments. However, he claims to have considerable support on both sides of the House. I have read the Hansard report of the Committee stage. Most of the members of that Committee were supporters of the Bill, yet not one tabled an amendment. No private Bill in history has gone through all its stages unamended.

Mr. Beith: That is not the case.

Mr. Moss: I take back my comment. Very few have done so.

Mr. Heald: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss). Are the members of the Committee real friends if they make yes-man speeches which do not get down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill?

Mr. Ian Taylor: I can reveal the hitherto undisclosed secret of what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was doing in February; he was sitting with me in the Finance Bill Committee. We discussed taxation and the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he did not like VAT on fuel. Is it not slightly hypocritical for him then to promote a Bill which will put up council taxes because of the charges that will be inherent in the application—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are beginning to stray again.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point that I want to make about amendment No. 50, which would remove the consultation, is that the consultation referred to in clauses 2(5) and 2(6) is window dressing. First, the Bill would give to local and central Government the power to draw up a plan for my house, saying what I needed to do to improve its energy efficiency, without my permission. Secondly, it would give them the power to say when I should do the work to the house. Thirdly, they would have the power to force me to do the work on time. Fourthly, they could have the right of entry to my home, as and when required for the purpose. [Interruption.] I can hear the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members disagreeing with me.
Clause 2 refers to the duty
to prepare a statement … of the arrangements needed and made and proposed to be made by the authority and other persons in order to achieve greater energy conservation in such accommodation".
That accommodation is
the residential accommodation in its area"—
in other words, all the houses including mine. Under the Bill, a plan would be drawn up for my house, saying what I needed to do to improve its energy efficiency, without my permission. It is no good saying that there could be random sampling because under the wording of the Bill, which is comprehensive, that could not be the case. On any housing estate in Britain, it is impossible to tell whether the houses have wall insulation without entering them.

Mr. Dafis: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the little booklet prepared as background to the Bill? There is a comprehensive description by two local authorities of the way in which the audit could be carried out practically. The method is costed and described in detail.
I must make it perfectly clear that the Bill would ensure that information was provided on the energy efficiency condition of housing in general. In turn, that would provide a guide to where improvement works could most efficiently and most usefully be carried out, taking into account levels of poverty and levels of inefficiency. It would, of course, then be a matter of voluntary decision by each householder as to whether he or she had that work to be carried out. There would be no right of entry to any property.

Mr. Heald: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman; that is not what the Bill says. It may be what his booklet says, but it is not what the Bill says. We in the House must be jealous of the powers that we give to central Government and to local government. I am happy to say that our present Government fight for the individual and protect the rights of individuals. In my constituency, North Hertfordshire district council, which is Conservative controlled, would take exactly the same approach.
However, I am not considering the Bill on the basis of what a Conservative Government would do or what Conservative-controlled North Hertfordshire district council would do. I am considering the Bill in terms of asking what the possible consequences would be of giving such powers to central and local government. It is because the Standing Committee did not do its job properly and did not consider that question that the Bill is in its present state.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend allowed an intervention by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who has a long record of concern about these matters. It should be acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman, in his ten-minute Bill which preceded this Bill, sought to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a fuel levy. That is up-front; everyone knows where we stand. However, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is trying to disguise the cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Heald: I accept that point, although I believe that the matter goes somewhat further. An individual has a right to say that his house will be an energy-efficiency blackspot —that he will be a thoroughly unreasonable person and will not have an energy-efficient home. I do not think that people would be right to say that, but I believe that they are entitled to say that. Opposition Members appear to agree with that. If they do, how on earth can they support the Bill?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He made it clear in Committee that the Bill was not intended to confer any new powers of entry or anything of that kind. Indeed, he said:
The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.]
It is a window-dressing Bill. It is a very pretty Bill, which

is not intended to achieve anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) is being a little unfair to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heald: I did not intend to be so uncharitable as to suggest that the Bill was a purely cosmetic exercise or that it was designed to give an appearance of concern about energy efficiency when it was purely a bit of politics. I was taking the Bill seriously and considering what powers were being conferred on local and central Government.
It is clear that one of the powers is to draw up a plan for my house saying what I need to do to improve its energy efficiency, without my permission. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State will be able to timetable the works. He will be able to say when the works are to be done. Clause 3(4) says:
The Secretary of State may make regulations … in order to secure the implementation of any plan".
The plan will be drawn up saying when the works are to be done to my house. I can be forced to do the works according to the timetable. There will be the right of entry to my home as an when required. What other meaning could be given to the words
to secure the implementation of any plan under this Act"?
That must give the Secretary of State the power to make such regulations. My constituents would not want to give such powers to central and local government.
The Bill goes so far that it would give powers that are normally given to Government only to deal with people who are suspected of crime or in very exceptional cases. I do not believe that such powers should be conferred willy-nilly. After all, an Englishman's home has always been his castle and we should fight for that principle, especially in the Conservative party.
I accept that the case for energy efficiency is powerful. I know that my hon. Friends will remember my speech at the Blackpool conference in 1989, in which I called for greater efforts. Indeed, I remember one hon. Friend describing it as "a thoughtful contribution", which is probably not the greatest of accolades at the Tory party conference.
However, the speech made the point that energy efficiency has three tremendously valuable benefits. The first is the money saved as a result. In Britain, we spend £50 billion a year on the energy bill. That could be reduced by 20 per cent., also reducing our dependence on imported fuel. The concern rightly felt in the country about the balance of payments could be met, to some extent, by more efficient energy use. Secondly, it is important that we should address the greenhouse effect and help to meet the Rio targets. Thirdly, it is right to conserve energy resources for the future to allow continued and sustainable growth.
What are we doing and what should we be doing in the context of consultation? The Government are already doing a good deal and so are local authorities. I noted that local authorities are spending around £200 million per year on energy efficiency measures. Through the home energy efficiency scheme, which has been mentioned, the Government are doubling their efforts in the current year. I have been impressed by the best practice programme in industry and commerce, which has had its budget increased year on year to more than £15 million for 1993-94, and in the public sector, the "making a corporate commitment" campaign has achieved a good deal. The recent written answers provided by various Departments show that the Government are playing their part.
Domestic housing remains the main issue that needs to be addressed. I certainly accept that each local authority should look to its own housing stock and provide a plan which sets out what should be done, that that plan should be subject to a timetable and that the works should be effected. If the Bill concentrated on that area of housing, it would achieve a good deal and would be the sort of limited measure that should receive support as a private Member's Bill. Since the Bill goes further and interferes with the individual rights of the home owner, I oppose it.
I oppose the provision on consultation for two reasons. First, it would not serve any useful purpose. The sorts of works which the council would be carrying out under clause 2(2) include considering information showing what measures would be needed to achieve estimated energy savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The council would then want to assess the cost of those measures and the average savings in fuel bills. It would want an analysis of the extent of decreases in emission of carbon dioxide and it would also want a policy which looks at the way in which people in financial hardship could be assisted in meeting the targets.
Each of those areas involves a good deal of technical information and technical discussion. I fully understand that a local authority may wish to have the benefit of an environmental adviser, who would know the technical issues in detail and would be able to advise on, for example, the degree of any decrease in emission of carbon dioxide resulting from the measures taken.
I certainly accept that expert advice and consultation would be vital if the Bill were to go ahead. However, the list of bodies proposed for consultation in subsections (5) and (6) concerns me because they seem to be groups—not experts—which are political in nature, are community based or are commercial interests.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How shocking to consult community groups.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my old rival, or whatever he was, in 1987, who beat me in the general election, as I recall, by quite a substantial number—

Mr. Hughes: I had a few votes to spare.

Mr. Heald: He had quite a few votes to spare, yes. The hon. Gentleman says, "How shocking to consult community groups." Do we want community groups to set themselves up as experts in technical issues such as the levels of carbon dioxide in the local environment? I shall happily allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he feels that any local community groups in Southwark and Bermondsey know very much about the technical information on carbon dioxide emissions there.

Mr. Hughes: I shall only intervene once because any filibustering is not to be extended with the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. Community groups in Southwark and Bermondsey and all over the country know two things. They know that the Bill would be a jolly good idea and want it to happen because energy conservation saves money and because many ordinary householders and local community groups are extremely well informed. Given the attitude of the Government, it appears that many such groups are better informed on the need for the legislation than them.

Mr. Heald: As ever, the hon. Gentleman and I find a lot of common ground. I agree that it is a jolly good idea to have energy efficiency measures and I have spoken out for them, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on previous occasions. However, there is all the difference in the world between a jolly good idea and an Act of Parliament. The detail in the Bill is hopelessly inadequate. I accept that community groups all over the country are concerned about energy efficiency and they are entitled to a decent Act of Parliament, which is effective in law and not a mish-mash which would ride over the rights of individual home owners and is badly expressed. We want proper measures of the limited sort that I advocated a moment ago.
The groups that are proposed for consultation have political, community or commercial interests. I find it difficult to see how they would take forward in any way the technical arguments that a local authority may have in preparing its plan. The only way in which they could take that argument forward would be if each group were to obtain its own technical advice so that it could make an input to a discussion about, for example, the average saving in a fuel bill given the various changes of a technical nature.
My third objection to those two subsections is their bureaucracy. If each and every one of those groups is entitled to have a series of meetings with the local authority to discuss technical issues and each is to prepare its own technical advice so that it can present a detailed argument, there will be a plethora of meetings, of agendas, of papers and amended papers, as the plan would obviously be subject to huge amendment as it progressed. The cost of that and the amount of local authority officer time needed would be colossal.
The provision is not only against the interests of ordinary home owners, unreasonable and undemocratic: it is worthless because it would simply be providing for either a cosmetic consultation exercise or one so detailed and involving technical advice from so many groups that it would be hopelessly bureaucratic and extremely expensive in terms of time and money. I object to the two subsections in every way and support amendment No. 50.
Having said that, energy efficiency is a major issue for the future. The Government are addressing the issue in a proper manner and I hope that local authorities will take seriously the duties that could be imposed on them in future if they are not prepared to take the steps themselves now.

Mr. John Battle: I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) about the amendments. He is right to say that there are incompatibilities within the group of amendments. I hope that amendment No. 50 will be withdrawn rather than pushed through, because it would undercut all the other amendments in the group by taking out the suggested consultation. That cuts across the argument put by the Minister in moving the new clause, which enhances public access to plans.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Battle: No, I shall not give way now, as I want to make progress on the Bill.
Some amendments within the group are extremely minor. For example, amendment No. 211 would simply introduce the word "proposed" before the word "plan". What is a plan, if not a proposal? Despite some


reservations about the detail of the amendments, in order to make progress on the Bill we are happy to see the amendments go ahead to allow the Bill to go through.
11.30 am
I was disappointed to hear on the radio this morning, when the interviewer suggested that the Bill would fail, the Minister reply, "Yes, the Government have made their position clear." He repeated this morning that the Bill will be an unnecessary burden on local authorities, yet I cannot seen how making plans available to the public, as he suggests should happen, would be an unnecessary burden. Nor do I understand how consultation is an unnecessary burden, yet amendment No. 50 removes the consultation process.

Mr. Baldry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Battle: I shall give way to the Minister in a second.
The Government are "making their position clear" in a strangely backhanded and underhand way. The Minister has moved a new clause which he claims improves the Bill, yet he speaks as though he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill and wants to see it go down.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman, who has a long interest in housing, will know that Leeds or any other housing authority can and does consult with a wide range of groups and organisations without a statutory obligation to do so. Local authorities do that every year under the housing investment programme, but it is not a statutory obligation. The point made in amendment No. 50 is that there should not necessarily be a statutory obligation on local authorities to consult with a particular group of individuals.

Mr. Battle: The Minister was on the Committee considering what became the Housing Act 1987 when he moved a clause that provided that local authorities have a statutory obligation to consult tenants. This matter goes wider. The Bill went through its Committee stage unopposed, and the Government tabled no amendments. It was passed in one sitting and endorsed by the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, the noble Lord Arran, in another place as "fully discussed". We now have more than 200 amendments on the amendment paper, including two that we shall discuss later, that would wreck the Bill. In this group, amendment No. 50 would undermine the whole consultation clause. I hope that it will be withdrawn because this vital Energy Conservation Bill is supported by all parties in the House and should go through intact.
No one underestimates the importance of energy efficiency in cutting pollution such as carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas, and acid rain, which has damaged more than half of Britain's trees. Energy efficiency will also improve the standard and quality of our homes and go some way towards tackling fuel poverty. I agree that we need information and plans, and that information should be spelt out publicly.
I remind the Minister that an estimated 7 million families in Britain cannot afford to pay for the warmth that they need to heat their homes. According to Government figures, some 3 million homes suffer from condensation, damp and mould growth. That shows that clear information

needs to be spelt out so that action plans to tackle the problems can be put in place. That is all that the Bill calls for.
In his Budget, the Chancellor increased the home energy efficiency scheme budget by £35 million to £77 million a year, but some of that £35 million came from other energy efficiency schemes, so it was shifted rather than new money. Even with that budget, it will take the home energy efficiency scheme practically 20 years to insulate all low-income homes in the United Kingdom, yet people are being asked to pay value added tax on their fuel bills. That is why the amendments to make the plans are acceptable.

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose—

Mr. Moss: rose—

Mr. Battle: Both hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. We have the whole morning to debate the issue, so they can make their own speeches later. I have already given way and want to make progress.
The needs of low-income households are desperate. May I remind the Minister of some other figures that should be wider public knowledge because they underpin the Bill? It was spelt out in the family expenditure survey that the average low-income family spent £8.50 on fuel each week—10 per cent. of its household expenditure. Poorer families struggling to pay fuel bills lack sufficient warmth and hot water but tend to have insufficient insulation. They need help to reduce their energy bills and warm up their homes, yet they must know what they are up against, which is why they need the information set out in the clause and why some of the proposed amendments are acceptable. They also need to know what can be done to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
We now all face VAT on fuel and lighting but we often pay for energy that literally goes out with the drafts through doors, window frames and roofing. People will pay more for wasted heating that does not look after them. Advising the elderly to switch off their fires does not constitute energy conservation, it simply causes increased deaths from hypothermia during the winter months.
This is a common-sense Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would it not be more to the point if greater use were made of the home energy efficiency scheme and the Government's greenhouse programme, which are doing things, rather than felling vast numbers of trees writing about them?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Government's green house programme has been called off, good though it was. I wish that it had been continued. Perhaps he should take up that matter with the responsible Minister in the Department of the Environment.
The energy efficiency budget of £103 million a year is only 3 per cent. of the revenue raised by the imposition of VAT on fuel. That means that the imposition of VAT will cut carbon dioxide emissions by only 1 per cent. It is not an energy efficiency measure. We need a full strategy for energy efficiency, and VAT is not an appropriate approach. If work is to be targeted at properties most in need, the lack of information on energy efficiency of all the housing stock should be dealt with now for the benefit of all householders.
Conservative Members seem to think that this issue simply concerns local authority housing, but the


Government's housing strategy has been centred on emphasising that the local authority housing role has been enabling and strategic. Some local authorities, however, have no housing stock of their own yet they are housing authorities and the Government have been pushing their strategic role and telling them to divest themselves of their stock and take on an enabling role. Why do not the Government take an overview and pull strategies together for energy efficiency?
The Bill firms up such a role. It places a duty on local authorities to draw up local energy conservation plans in consultation with all relevant interests. I submit to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North that the. clause which amendment No. 50 would delete is drawn widely enough to include practically everybody. It is not an exclusive clause.
The Bill is in tune with local authorities' role of presenting plans on the condition of all their housing stock. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North views it as an intrusion. I should like to remind him that, although he was not a Member of the House then, the Conservative Government passed the Housing Act 1985. Under section 605 of the 1985 Act local authorities should consider, at least once a year, the housing conditions in their district. That refers not only to council housing but to all housing.
How can the Government foster a renovation grant regime for the private rented sector and the private owner-occupied sector if they do not know about the condition of the stock? Ministers accept that, and I hope that we can urge Back-Bench Conservative Members to recognise that the Government see the need for the English house conditions survey to cover all stock.
Given that 23 per cent. of housing is local authority housing, the remainder of stock—the other 77 per cent that is held by housing associations and the private rented sector and is in owner-occupation—is in a state of disrepair and needs to be dealt with. I hope that Conservative Members will accept that we are not simply talking about local authority housing.
The Bill insists that the duty to look at the housing stock should include an energy efficiency element. It demands a timetable for action and the consideration of funding to implement it. The Bill does not place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on local authorities, as the Minister blusteringly said this morning. Most of the information is already known and can be easily obtained.
As the Minister accepts, the local authorities already have the discretionary power to collect the information and some—Newark, Sherwood, Leicester, Cambridge and others—use the information well and to good effect. All we want now is for all local authorities to be use best practice because we cannot waste any more time. That is why the Labour party, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who deals with environmental protection for the Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who has responsibility for energy and me—in my role as spokesman for housing—support the Bill 110 per cent. We are even prepared to accept the new clauses and amendments, although they contain minor contradictions, so as to make progress on the Bill this morning.
I hope that the Government will not try to talk the Bill out and render our procedures and the Committee stage of the Bill a fruitless waste of everyone's time. I hope that they will not make today another Friday example of backhanded, shabby parliamentary game—playing that

brings procedures in the House into national disrepute. The Bill is a touchstone of the Government's commitment to energy efficiency.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1985 Act, which requires local authorities to consider each year the housing conditions in their districts. I have no argument with that. Under that provision, a local authority could consider energy efficiency measures. However, is not there all the difference in the world between a broad, general consideration each year of the issues, which could be done by random sampling, and what the Bill suggests? Is he seriously saying that the Labour party—one of the major parties of state—is prepared to put on the statute book bad legislation, warts and all, which is what he seems to be saying? Does he not accept that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to ensure that proper legislation reaches the statute book?

Mr. Battle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was not here when we voted on the poll tax. I had never seen legislation being forced through the House in such a fashion and then taken away. I am glad that he was not a Member of the House when the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was enacted and then had to be repealed. The hon. Gentleman may be thinking of section 106 of the 1985 Act, but if he were to compare that with the results of the English house conditions survey he would see that energy efficiency does not loom large enough.
The importance of the Bill is that it underlines energy efficiency. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Labour party supports it. Yes, we do because it affirms the duty of the local authority, and does not leave it to the discretion of the local authority, to ensure that the action is taken throughout the land. The Bill will prove to be a touchstone of the Government's commitment to energy efficiency. So far, the Government have called off the successful greenhouse programme and have failed to identify a source of funding for the Energy Saving Trust. I hope that they will not fail to support the modern, sensible Bill. Their action will demonstrate whether the Government are in the practice of positively undermining the concept of energy efficiency while claiming to promote it.
Today is test time for the Government on energy efficiency because the Bill will reduce the number of households that are unable to afford to heat their homes adequately. It will achieve reductions in national energy demand and it is crucial to introduce the measure now because of the imposition of VAT on domestic heating and lighting. I hope that the amendments and new clauses will be withdrawn. If they are not, I hope that they will be accepted so that the Bill reaches the statute book as quickly as possible.

Mr. Beith: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 3.

Division No. 218]
[11.45


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bennett, Andrew F.


Barnes, Harry
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul






Bray, Dr Jeremy
Miller, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Burden, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Byers, Stephen
Olner, William


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
O'Neill, Martin


Clapham, Michael
Patchett, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cohen, Harry
Rendel, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Robathan, Andrew


Cousins, Jim
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Denham, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Dicks, Terry
Short, Clare


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Fraser, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Garrett, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tyler, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Walley, Joan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert N


Janner, Greville
Whittingdale, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Wicks, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Livingstone, Ken
Worthington, Tony


Lynne, Ms Liz



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Cynog Dafis and


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Mr. Nigel Jones.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





NOES


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stephen, Michael
Mr. Jacques Arnold and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERdeclared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).

Mr. Wells: I must immediately declare that I am unalterably opposed both to new clause 1 and to the Bill. [Interruption.] I recognise that this is a Government new clause, as hon. Members are pointing out from a sedentary position, but some Back Benchers have a certain independence of mind and they use their minds independently of the Government whom they support.
I do not favour the idea of making available plans from the energy conservation authority to anyone, on application, free of charge. If we have a separate vote on it, I shall vote for new clause 6, which causes a charge to be made if anyone wishes to have copies of those plans, to know what is in store for him.
The Bill and the new clause impose an immense bureaucratic charge on local authorities. The sort of energy conservation measures at stake are those that are in the interests of people who need them in their homes, so those people should be grateful if local authorities draw up the plans on their behalf, since they would otherwise have had to pay for them. They should therefore have to pay for them when they receive them, which is why I oppose the Government's proposal that the plans be given out free of charge.
It seems absurd that we should try to force people to carry out home improvements that they ought to carry out in any case. Government taxation laws may act as inducements, but it is wrong to prepare plans in this long-winded way, especially since those drawing up the plans may know little about the houses that they are inspecting—the more so if they do not even enter them. Many supporters of the Bill have suggested that they would

not need to go inside. I cannot see how an energy plan for a house can be prepared unless a detailed survey of that house has been made.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that that the Royal Institute of British Architects thinks that the Bill is a first step to serious energy efficiency measures throughout our housing stock? My father was an architect for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the view of the RIBA should be taken seriously and considered in the debate?

12 noon

Mr. Wells: Of course I agree that the view of the Royal Institute of British Architects should be taken into account in considering these matters. RIBA is obviously experienced in providing proper energy-conscious homes and other buildings. However, many of its members have failed lamentably in the course of my lifetime to design such buildings. For example, throughout Hertfordshire, schools built by eminent architects are hopelessly energy-inefficient. They are full of windows and have flat roofs and lose energy almost like the old-fashioned radiators that heated bricks during the night and gave out the heat during the day.
Some British architects tend to be authoritarian when dealing with people who are not experts in housing and other buildings and tell them what to do. That is a natural thing for them to do in their professional capacity. That is the trouble with the Bill, and it is natural for the Labour party to support it.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke about how much he supports the Bill. That is because he has been a little dictator. He was in Leeds city council and was used to commanding a huge Labour majority. That is how the Labour party likes it because it can tell everybody else what it proposes to do and how it will do it, and if people do not like that they can lump it.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are already far too many powers on the statute book enabling local authorities and officials to poke their noses into our houses? Does he agree that the British people still believe that an Englishman's home is his castle?

Mr. Wells: I profoundly agree with that concept. We should respect the natural instincts of the British people. People should be allowed to enjoy privacy in their own homes and not be subject to the prying, interfering busybodies who would—be imposed upon us by all the opposition parties.

Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who is not in his place, would resent, with some justification, being called a petty dictator. The thrust of our remarks has been to suggest that in some respects the measure builds on Conservative-inspired legislation and especially on section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. That already requires local authorities to carry out a housing survey. The Bill would have added to that survey an energy efficiency dimension. At the end of the day, it will be up to individuals to decide whether to take advantage of that.
There is cross-party agreement that the Government's energy efficiency proposals have to be voluntary in the context of private householders. There is a clear obligation


on local authorities to have as good a fabric as possible for their tenants so that buildings are kept as well insulated and as effectively maintained as possible. In no way does that suggest dictatorship: it suggests good husbandry of the resources that local authorities have a responsibility to maintain.

Mr. Wells: If the Bill simply advised householders on how they could improve the energy efficiency of their homes, it would not attract my hostility and that of the Government. I understand from my reading of it that when the surveys have been carried out and the results submitted to the Government, the Government would have to enforce by a specified date the implementation of the recommendations by the district authorities. That is why I suggest that the Bill is authoritarian and bureaucratic and why I said that it would appeal to the Labour party.
The socialist principles of the Labour party would impose upon others authorities and instructions about the way in which they should live. I understand that philosophy but I am totally against it because such matters should be left to individuals. It is for householders to decide how to make their homes more energy-efficient, thus voluntarily contributing to the reduction of carbon dioxide and enhancing the preservation of the world's climate. I am in favour of that.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman complains about how the Opposition want to see things done. How does he square that with the real commitment to which the Government have signed up? If the Government are to implement that commitment, something will have to be done. The hon. Gentleman should address the question of how we can reduce emissions and energy waste without guidance such as that in the Bill.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Deputy Speaker has already brought it to my attention that he is sensitive to any questions that waste time. I fully support that attempt to keep the debate in order. If I accepted the invitation of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to explain how I would set about reducing Co2 emissions and the greenhouse effect, I am sure that I would be rightly ruled out of order. I would love to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation because I am deeply concerned about that matter and wish to see many effective actions taken. However, the Bill does not go about tackling the problem in the right way: it goes about it in entirely the wrong way and would result in resentment and anger about authorities attempting to impose things on people. People should be invited to act voluntarily.

Mr. Dafis: rose—

Mr. Wells: I give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). I hope that I have pronounced that correctly.

Mr. Dafis: It is something like that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to say Ceredigion.
It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Bill is authoritarian. It provides for implementation of the plans. That means that local authorities would be required to offer to householders the means by which energy efficiency in their homes could be improved. I am confident that a high percentage of those who received that offer would avail themselves of it because it would be so enormously beneficial. They would also understand that in

making such provision in their own interests they would be making an important contribution to the common weal in which we believe. We also believe in the need for a strategic approach to tackle the whole matter.

Mr. Wells: We shall come to the issue of implementation and to the authoritarian effect of the Bill later in the debate. From my reading of the Bill it seems to be capable of being made very authoritarian.
The hon. Gentleman says that householders would be offered the means—presumably money or materials and workmen who would come into their houses to effect the improvements. That is a wrong use of taxpayers' money. If it is profoundly in the interests of the householder to make his house more energy efficient he should help himself to do it by saving his money and implementing energy conservation measures. That is the way to get consent, and in that event people would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but people do not like having things forced upon them.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be going against Government policy. A large amount of taxpayers' money is already provided through the home energy efficiency scheme. Since the last Budget, the householder has not had to make any contribution. That principle is accepted. We want help to be put into a strategic framework and targeted at people in such a way that the environmental benefits will be maximised. That is the purpose of the audit and I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.

Mr. Wells: I do not think that I can convince the hon. Gentleman in this exchange. The audit, the bureaucracy and the authoritarian action are not likely to have the beneficial results that he and I would probably agree are necessary. The Bill is the wrong way to go about it and new clause 1 is also wrong because it makes no charge for the acquisition or viewing of the beneficial plans that will be produced under the Bill. The person who benefits from the plans prepared by local authorities should pay and thus contribute to the high costs that the Bill will impose on householders, whether they are local authority tenants or home owners.
Energy efficiency should be by consent and persuasion and should not be achieved by statute in the way that the Bill proposes. I shall oppose new clause 1, if I get the opportunity. I hope to persuade some of my hon. Friends to come with me into the Lobby on this occasion. By opposing the clause I hope that we will later have the opportunity to discuss new clause 6. The Clerks told me that we have to discuss-new clauses in the proper order and so we shall have to go through new clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 before we get there, but I support new clause 6 because it is essential.
My hon. Friends agree that people should pay for energy conservation measures because they will help them immeasurably when paying their fuel bills.

Mr. Dafis: I wish to speak about amendment No. 50 and to express my opposition to the removal of the requirement for consultation. That part of the Bill is modelled on existing legislation and on the way in which the Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with waste disposal and contains a requirement for local authorities to consult. There is therefore nothing unusual about the requirement. It is a normal process and it is certainly beneficial.
The amendment is a sign of the way in which the Government are intent on sabotaging the Bill—I mean the Government and not Conservative Members. That sabotage is infuriating since the Government claim to be committed to sustainable development. The Bill is one step on the road to painless sustainable development and would be generally accepted, but the Government are baulking at that first step.
The way in which amendments have been tabled on Report is a very serious misuse of the parliamentary process. It is also anti-democratic. Such details should have been dealt with in Committee. The Government's approach is also more fundamentally undemocratic. They are flying in the face of the will of the people and of the majority in the House.
It has been a great privilege to be associated with those campaigning in support of the Bill. The process has been educative and consultative and has involved many people. I pay tribute to those who helped, for example Ron Bailey of the Green party and Andrew Warren of the Association for the Conservation of Energy among others. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) also deserves praise.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is the will of the British people that their council taxes should be increased because of the imposition of more bureaucratic regulations, which will involve employing more bureaucrats in more town halls? As far as democracy is concerned, did he not just vote to curtail debate on this important matter?

Mr. Dafis: I do not think that I need to consider the hon. Gentleman's last remark seriously. As to the additional bureaucracy, the survey work could probably be carried out using existing resources in housing and environmental health departments. The sums of money involved are small and it would mean only a tiny addition to local government spending. Council tax payers would not have any hesitation in supporting the Bill. I am sure that it would generally be supported.
It is worth noting that a magnificent coalition has been brought together to support the Bill, which unquestionably reflects the majority of opinion. Supporters included: a host of local authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Trades Union Congress, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Construction Industry Council, which knows about building, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Gas Consumers Council, and the National Association of Local Government Officers.
A raft of environmental organisations support it and include: Greenpeace, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is also supported by the right to fuel campaign, Age Concern, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Spastics Society and the Institute of Housing, whose members know about housing and are concerned about people's welfare.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to remind the House of the measure of all-party support for the principle of the Bill? Perhaps he can give us figures.

Mr. Dafis: In a moment I will provide details as that is very important.
People want action on the environment and action on behalf of the poor, to promote efficiency and a thrifty use of natural resources. They also want action to mitigate the effects of 17.5 per cent. value added tax on fuel on the poor and the elderly—the fuel poor. The Bill would provide the opportunity to do that.
A coalition of enlightened people are behind the Bill and it is supported by the following Conservative Members of Parliament: the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for Corby (Mr. Powell), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Poole (Mr. Ward), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), for Rochford (Dr. Clark), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Ryedale (Mr.Greenway), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) for Selby (Mr. Alison), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), for Westbury (Mr. Faber), for Worcester (Mr. Luff) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). It was also supported by some others who did not sign the early-day motion.

Mr. Baldry: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was starting a filibuster when he read out that list. If so many of my hon. Friends supported his measure one is curious to know why they were not here today to support the closure motion. Perhaps that is because, having heard what I and others had to say at Environment Question Time on Wednesday, they saw the light and realised that the Bill would impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on local authorities and costs on taxpayers and therefore changed their minds. That can be the only reasonable inference that one can draw from the fact that they are not here to support the measure.

Mr. Dafis: I see that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) wishes to intervene again.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I know that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to give way again, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to intervene. Since I strongly supported the Bill on Second Reading I hope that he will put on record the fact that my constituency is Norwich, North.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman's constituency comes in the rest of my list.
To respond to the Minister, I am inexperienced in parliamentary matters. It has become clear this week that the Government are intent on destroying the Bill. Supporters of the Bill had to decide whether they wanted to come here as a symbolic gesture, knowing that their votes would count for nothing. The Government will talk the Bill out. If we had a straight vote on the Bill there would be a majority in favour.
Let me continue the list of people who did not sign the early-day motion, but expressed support in some way or another. The first was the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), which is rather odd because this morning he spoke against the Bill. The others were the hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), and the hon. Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Norwich, North, whose support I much appreciate. I appreciate also the support of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) who is on record in The Independent earlier this week as supporting the Bill.

Mr. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends whose names he read out studied, understood and discussed the Bill with the hon. Gentleman, and studied the amendments? I believe that few of them actually understand the Bill's implications and the way that it would impact on the ordinary householder and taxpayer.

Mr. Dafis: I can confidently assert that hardly any legislation has been so carefully explained to so many right hon. and hon. Members, by so many people, and by so many publications. It is perfectly well understood that the Bill requires local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to undertake energy audits for all domestic property in their area. Right hon. and hon. Members understand perfectly well and approve that principle.

Mr. Butler: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider, in a spirit of co-operation, that speaking to some of the amendments does not mean that my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) in particular—oppose the Bill, let alone that we oppose its intention. That is not the case.

Mr. Dafis: I am delighted to hear that. As was made clear by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, we would have been perfectly happy to accept some of the amendments. If they had been presented at an earlier stage, they could have been integrated and everything would have

proceeded better. I gather from the hon. Gentleman's statement that there is life in this issue for the future. I will return to that point later.

Ms Joan Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no use making a commitment to energy conservation if Conservative Members are only prepared to pay lip service to it? Given the increase in domestic fuel prices, it is crucial to take on board some of the Bill's measures. Many of my constituents are unable to meet all the costs of energy conservation and cannot keep themselves warm in winter. Even if the Bill is talked out, it is time that the Government gave a commitment to making energy conservation an absolute priority.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to enter the Chamber during consideration of the Bill when she has not been present before and impugn the motives of right hon. and hon. Members who have sat through the entire debate and have long taken an interest in environmental matters?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such a remark, he should seek to intervene.

Ms Walley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Dafis: I was referring to the enormously impressive coalition of supporters for the Bill. Arrayed against that enlightened coalition is a total of seven wrecking amenders, including the Secretary of State. I cannot name them because that would be against parliamentary procedure, and I do not know the names of their constituencies. I will therefore refer to them as the unmentionable seven. They are riding into battle with amendments and new clauses blazing not, as in the film, in defence of people's welfare but in a direct attack on it.
Their constituents will know who they are, but the effect on those Conservative wrecking amenders will be slightly reduced by the fact that they all have large majorities. I wonder whether that is coincidental. However, they should not be complacent. These days, no Conservative majority is safe, and their majorities will be far less safe once their constituents know of their attempts to block the Bill. Make no mistake—they will be informed of that, and of the Government's failure to-mitigate the effects of VAT.
The irony is that many Conservative supporters of the Bill will suffer because they will be identified with the Government that has chosen to wreck it. The Bill is enlightened, progressive, important, down-to-earth and useful. It would help to improve the quality of people's lives and to protect the environment upon which we all depend. It would help also to highlight and make us more conscious of the environment. The Government and the Conservative party will pay the electoral price of blocking the Bill.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman appeals to the self-preservation instincts of Conservative Members. I understand and appreciate his concern for us in the elections that face us—but does it not strike the hon. Gentleman that a number of us are so convinced that the


Bill is the wrong way to go about energy conservation that we are prepared to take that risk and to do what is right by our electors, rather than do what might be popular? Did the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed get together with Ministers, to try to model the Bill in a way that would make it acceptable to the Government, or did they just propose the Bill to embarrass Conservative Members?

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asserting that the amenders are people of integrity and that they are prepared to stand up for their principles and accept the electoral consequences. That is a fine interpretation of their position and it is not for me to question it—but I have my own thoughts on the matter.
As to the willingness of the Bill's promoter, supporters and others who worked hard on it to enter into a dialogue with the Department, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that there was a willingness on their part to go a long way to accepting Government proposals for changes to the Bill. The one thing that we were adamant about was the need to retain the statutory requirement for local authorities to undertake an audit, so that there would be a strategic framework for the development of energy efficiency policies.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Can the hon. Gentleman give any examples of changes to the Bill made as a result of discussions with the Department?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, I may say that I have been listening carefully to the debate, and would prefer it if right hon. and hon. Members will now address themselves to the new clauses and amendments under consideration. I give fair warning.

Mr. Dafis: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed indicated this morning our willingness to accept, for example, new clause 1. We would have been prepared to accept several amendments, but we wanted to retain the crucial principle of auditing.
I am sensitive to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is relevant to remark that I strongly oppose amendment No. 50, which seeks to remove the democratic and participatory provision for consultation. I want to make it clear that the issue of environmental sustainability and energy efficiency will not go away. The Bill will not go away either.
Let me give fair warning to the Government that the Bill will be back in November. It will gather even more support then and its implications will be more properly understood. I trust that even more Conservative Members will be aware of its implications and realise that the objections that they have raised this morning are largely baseless. We will see in November, will we not, whether the Government—assuming that they are still in power—dare sabotage the Bill a second time.

Mr. Butler: I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) that this matter will not go away, but I would say that no one wants it to. We are all anxious to come to a proper resolution of the serious issues that the Bill raises. It is time perhaps to come out, if I may do so publicly, as having been for some time a member of Friends of the Earth, whose publications

are extremely useful and generally of a high standard, except when they stray into party political issues, when one tends to disagree.
12.30 pm
In Milton Keynes, we have a proud boast on our recycling record. In the next couple of weeks, I shall attend the opening of a new recycling facility. Its construction has cost some £5 million. We are extremely proud of what we do there. I, personally, am extremely proud that a response to a question from me led the Department of the Environment and the DTI jointly to issue their challenge to the packaging industry last July to secure the retrieval and recycling of a high proportion of its products.
I mention that only to establish the point that there is consensus across the parties and, more importantly, across the country on the need for energy efficiency, by which we do not mean being able to turn up the thermostat and heat the house at a higher level for the same cost; we mean using less energy. When we get on to those groups of amendments—if we do—there will be further comments to make on the definition of energy efficiency in the Bill. There is no point to all of this if energy is still consumed at the same rate, because that, by any definition, is a waste.

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend has just mentioned the local authority effort on energy efficiency. At the moment, local authorities are spending some £200 million annually on energy efficiency measures. Within the amendments, does he agree that the permissive principle—allowing local authorities to spend on energy efficiency, to conduct audits and so on—is one thing, but that to force them to do so is another? What would his approach be? Does he feel that the permissive approach would be adequate, or does he agree that it probably would be right to force local authorities to implement such measures and conduct energy audits in that way?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his —as usual—most helpful intervention. I believe that any local authority could undertake such an audit now if it wished to do so. It does not require further legislation to do so. The Bill is concerned only with mandating and forcing that to be done. Surely the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I have learnt something in the past two years here: if one is to mandate the ends, must also mandate the means.
That brings me to the central issue of the Bill: does it mandate the means? In other words, does the clause that relates to the Secretary of State making regulations to secure the putting into effect of the plan mean anything or not? If it does not, we have failed to mandate the means and there is no point, apart from publicity, in mandating the end. We shall come back to that in further amendments.
I shall conclude my introductory comments by referring to the National Energy Foundation, based in Milton Keynes—naturally, where else—which has done excellent work. I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit it. I should be happy to show him some of the work done there and, indeed, some of the energy efficient houses built specifically to demonstrate the effectiveness of energy efficiency within the new city of Milton Keynes.
I reject the simplistic, and I believe insulting, contention that it is necessary to support not just the idea and principle but the wording of the Bill to prove that we have a concern for the environment. I am sure that hon. Members will not


accept that argument. I personally would reject it. I welcome enormously enthusiastically the title of the Bill and the idea behind it. My regret is that it is not effective.
Reference has been made to a large number of amendments. I tabled a substantial number, but, because of the arcane procedures, if one wishes, for example—as I do—to change the word "investigation" to "energy audit", one must table a separate amendment for each occasion that it occurs in the Bill. That would involve nine or 10 amendments.
If one examines the amendments that have been tabled, certainly those which I have tabled, one will find that they involve about six or seven substantive changes. The other 30 or 40 amendments that I have tabled are merely consequential. It is not right to suggest that a wrecking number of changes have been proposed. The procedures simply require many amendments to be tabled.
I have tried to decide whether the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has changed his mind since he spoke in Committee on 16 February, when he said in an exchange:
The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.]
From the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made this morning, I am not sure that he is any longer willing for that to happen on Report. I conclude that he is willing for it to happen only in another place. I do not find that helpful.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will find that I also said that we needed to have a manageable Report stage. I submit that as the Government have tabled more than 200 amendments they clearly do not intend to have a manageable Report stage.

Mr. Butler: With respect, it is an entirely manageable Report stage. Although I have tabled 40 or 50 amendments, as I said, they represent only about seven substantive points. I tabled them several days ago. The right hon. Gentleman could have contacted me to say which amendments he was prepared to accept and which he was not. I have had no such contact. That would have made the Report stage even more manageable.
Some of the amendments deal with the consultation clauses. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment No. 50 deletes the requirement to consult. Other amendments, in particular amendments Nos. 209 and 216, relate to who should be consulted. Consulting is all very well, but surely the Bill ought to be about achieving energy savings. I question whether, as it is currently worded, the object of the Bill is to achieve the drawing up of a plan or to achieve energy savings.
It is self-evident that the plan would be useless if it did not lead to energy savings. It would be merely a bureaucratic exercise and yet another charge on the taxpayer. That charge would be fully justified, and the plan would be fully justified, if we could secure implementation of the plan and ensure that it was drawn up properly. We shall return to the question of implementation.
In Committee the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was asked whether people should be forced to install double glazing and so on. He replied:
The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.]

That is the kernel of the problem. Does the Bill intend to do anything or not? If it intends not to achieve anything, the right hon. Gentleman can do that by all means. But surely he should not do so at enforced cost to residents. If it intends to achieve something, how is it to be done?
Draconian regulations would be necessary if authorities were required to conduct an audit. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) drew attention earlier this morning to clause 3(4), which says:
The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument in order to secure the implementation of any plan'".

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the question of achieving energy efficiency measures, as distinct from drawing up plans. It is interesting to note that organisations that have been most progressive in implementation are strong supporters of the Bill because they believe that we need the framework of information that the audit would provide. I mention in particular Neighbourhood Energy Action, which more than anyone else is responsible for the introduction of the home energy efficiency scheme.
Also, two local authorities have already carried out significant programmes. Derby city council and Newark and Sherwood district council have provided information about how the audit should be conducted. They are convinced that the audit is necessary before we can carry out the necessary works in the most efficient way.

Mr. Butler: Neighbourhood Energy Action is an excellent initiative. I am aware that a substantial number of local authorities have expressed little or no real interest in it. They have merely welcomed it. They have done nothing about it. It has been difficult even to get them interested. That may be an argument for some form of mandatory involvement. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, two authorities in particular have already produced precisely the type of audit that he urges on the rest of the country under existing legislation. That shows that it is not necessary to mandate such audits. It is a two-sided argument which we shall not resolve today.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend clarifies an important point. Hon. Members who favour energy efficiency look at the £350 million that local government already spends on improving energy efficiency and wonder whether the Bill, because of the bureaucratic framework that it proposes, will detract from that amount. The fact that there will be a cost appears from clause 3(2)(b), which says that the Secretary of State
may make a Scheme for making contributions to the cost of implementation of such plans"—
in other words, the cost of the implementation of a bureaucratic procedure rather than of energy efficiency.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention reminded me of recent speeches that Opposition Members have made on the NHS. Their claim is that money is spent on bureaucracy rather than on the delivery of service—a claim that we refute because we cannot manage without managers. That, however, is precisely what the Bill proposes, but whether that would require additional funding, which would require increased taxation, or existing funding, which would lead to less insulation work being carried out, is a matter for clarification.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Butler: I see that the right hon. Gentleman is eager to give it.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should rely on his own understanding of the Bill rather than on being advised by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has a perverse view of it. The subsection that the hon. Member for Esher quoted deals with the Secretary of State's powers to contribute to the costs of implementation of energy conservation measures—a power, not a duty, under which the Secretary of State could make a contribution, as taxpayers do already, to energy-saving works that surveys have shown to be cost effective.

Mr. Butler: I do not wish to become involved in a discussion of perversities in Esher, but if funding is required two questions arise: first, where does it come from, and, secondly, to what effect?

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bill that I introduced, which provided for a levy but which has now been removed because, in the meantime, the Government have imposed VAT on domestic fuel. It occurred to us that that will provide huge revenue, which the Government should recycle in the process of energy efficiency. The Bill leaves open various options, of which that might be one, for funding implementation.

Mr. Butler: I am again grateful to the hon. Member. I feel as though I am being allowed to intervene in my speech in replying to him.
Clause 2(5) mandates; it does not suggest a list of consultees. It says that it is
the duty of the authority—
(a) in preparing plans and any modification, to consult
the specified groups. There is no requirement to pay attention to what they say or to take their representations into account. In a way, that may be sensible because it would prevent judicial review of a plan produced in a form contrary to representations received, but it makes it a paper exercise and nothing more.
That is more a comment on the defective drafting of the Bill than on anything else, but it is a valid point. If that is correct, and I am not from Esher so I hope that I will not be accused of perversity in taking the view, the subsection is pointless and we may as well pass amendment No. 50, which would delete it.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most curious features of the clause is that subsection (5)(v) suggests that the Gas Consumers Council should be consulted but not Ofgas? Gas consumers are consulted but not the regulator, yet the regulator of electricity is consulted but not consumers. Is not that the basis for agreeing amendment No. 210, which he and I have tabled and which includes Ofgas and electricity consumer committees?

Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North and I tabled amendment No. 210, it must be a very good amendment. I have no doubt that he has interpreted it correctly. I shall not refer to it further except to say in passing that I have never managed to live in a house which has a gas supply, so I cannot assist him on that point.
12.45 pm
If there is no need for the list of consultees, let us delete it and accept amendment No. 50, which would make it optional. It is impossible to carry out an investigation without talking to someone. Incidentally, "investigation" is not defined in the Bill, although an amendment which I have tabled and which we may get on to discussing seeks to replace the word "investigation" with an energy audit, which is defined. Presumably the local authority, wishing to carry its population with it, would choose whom to consult. We might therefore adopt amendment No. 209 to that effect or, if the House is minded to leave clause 2(5), we might in due course accept amendment No. 216 which would add to the consultees
representatives of organisations concerned with the provision of affordable energy for the elderly and those on low incomes".
We should then perhaps start to deal with the groups in our society which need help mandated from others and at others' expense. We could begin by accepting that amendment against which, I notice with delight and pleasure, my name appears.
I deal now with the technical issue of the interaction of clause 2(d) and clause 5(a) which provide a duty to ensure a new round of consultation with each of the listed consultees not only for the drawing up of, but for any modification of, a plan. Presumably any modification of the plan relating to any part of a local authority's residential accommodation would involve the authority going through the whole consultation exercise again. If it breached that duty, any subsequent plan and any expenditure incurred in producing or putting into effect any such plan or modification could be invalid and challengeable in the courts. It is a risk that I urge those who support the Bill to bear in mind when, as we all hope, it is reconsidered in another form. That may appear a legalistic point, but it is valid.
New clauses 4 and 5 are included in the group of amendments that we are discussing. The establishment and implementation of energy conservation audits and plans would clearly involve local authorities in considerable expense. We do not yet know quite what the local audit will be because it is described only as an "investigation". I have tabled amendments to clarify the issue but I doubt that they will be accepted. We are not, therefore, in a position to estimate the actual cost, but we know that it will be substantial.
It is unclear from the Bill whether plans will be established by simple sample representative audits or by reference to each house, another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North. Again, it would be wide open to legal challenge and, if the Bill has to be brought back in another form, I hope that that point will be taken into account. In any event, the proposals involve a considerable financial burden.
Of course, the information contained in any audit will be of great commercial value. For example, a private sector firm that is active in producing, selling and installing equipment aimed at the energy conservation market will find an open door. The scheme will be a database of magnificent proportions for potential purchasers of their product. The active participation of the private sector in the commercial opportunities available will be essential to the successful implementation of the plan. One cannot fit double glazing unless there are double glazing companies to do the fitting, and one cannot install draught excluders unless someone is making, selling and, as under the


Government's scheme, fitting them at a subsidised price. It is therefore vital that the information is available to such companies.
New clauses 4 and 5 concern the availability of copies of the plans, and the background and supporting documents. We again have some sloppy drafting, although in the new clauses rather than in the Bill. We should, perhaps, talk about residents or occupants of residential accommodation within the area rather than simply members of the public. I am anxious that commercially valuable information should not be given away.
If the plans are to result in real improvements in energy efficiency, they must also act as a focus for discussion, local publicity and so on. That means that information on them, information behind them and information that led to the conclusions should be available. If authorities are required to make the information available on request, it is reasonable, given the substantial resource constraints under which local government does, always has and always will operate, that they should make charges. Those should be such as the authority thinks appropriate. Similarly, a charge should be applied to copies of modifications.
I have used the word "appropriate". Local authorities should not be minded to make a profit out of the exercise, although it would be an extraordinarily useful subsidy. One could take the view that every pound collected for the provision of copies would be a pound to be spent on the provision of facilities for energy conservation, which the Bill purports to be about.
There are bound to be requests in many instances for the background information and relevant documents. Copies should be available, but subject to any such charge as is considered appropriate. The proposed imposition of such charges under new clauses 4 and 5 is, of course, in line with established practice for the provision of, for example, development plan copies. The charges will serve to ensure that the service is used responsibly and economically by the public.
A charging regime that leaves local authorities with the discretion to decide the level of charges could be used by authorities to recoup some or all of the cost, and could be misused, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of charging too much. Expert energy audits undertaken by consultants as background material will be expensive and also extremely commercially valuable items. They will be of great interest to energy service companies and to other commercial interests in the area which may therefore be prepared to pay a proper commercial price to get access to that information.
My intention in tabling, on behalf of a number of my colleagues, new clauses 4 and 5 is not that local authorities should make a profit out of the exercise or, indeed, use their discretion to set charges at unreasonably high levels. Instead, the new clauses would encourage the issuing of realistically priced documents, promoting the local authority plans for energy conservation while allowing authorities the discretion to make a modest but useful contribution to the considerable cost of drawing up the plans. I would expect most authorities to exercise discretion reasonably and responsibly.
Experience in other areas, however, shows that a minority of authorities are unlikely to exercise discretion in such a way. I commend, therefore, not only new clause 4, but new clause 5, which allows the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing the maximum amount that may be charged under the provisions. The

regulations would allow the Secretary of State to make different provisions for different cases and for different kinds of document, such as the plan itself, background papers or, particularly, copies of expensive, externally obtained experts' reports. The flexibility in new clause 5 would help to ensure that the charging system was not rigid or too bureaucratic.
I have no doubt that, in making or amending such regulations, the Secretary of State would consult closely with the local authority side and would take due account of the experience of charging systems in operation for other publicly available documents. The regulations would, of course, be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The two new clauses taken together provide the basis for a prudent and sensible charging regime. I will therefore, in due course, seek to support them. I commend them to hon. Members.
I reiterate my welcome for the idea behind the Bill. I have admiration for whoever drafted the title of the Bill, but I regret that the body of the Bill, as currently drafted, would not achieve the excellent objective set out in the title.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I admit to quite a swing of emotion over the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), when the Bill was introduced I thought, "Excellent: a further step in the important matter of energy conservation and environmental matters generally." After all, it was the objective of the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to claw back the amount of carbon dioxide emissions and to take a number of measures to help with energy conservation. A look at the face of the Bill revealed that it had the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties. I thought that it was a measure introduced by the great and the good that was moving in a direction in which everybody would like go. Imagine my horror when, with the proverbial towel around my head, I went through the Bill's detailed provisions and tried to work out its effects.
For instance, I am especially concerned that clause 2 —the subject of amendment No. 50—would impose further bureaucracy on local councils. As every hon. Member knows, our local authority leaders tell us time and again that one of the greatest problems with which they have to cope is the rigid imposition by the House of detailed bureaucratic requirements. If the Bill became law, our local authorities would have to divert talent, resources and tons of paper to drawing up the required plans—one wonders about the environmental impact of felling the number of trees required to obtain fibre for those tons of paper.
In considering the amendments, we should take account of the fact that local government should consult people who have an interest in the proposed actions. I am totally in favour of widespread consultation, but authorities should have the right to consult as and with whom they think fit and they should not be placed under a duty by the House to consult in a rigid way, with individuals and organisations that are not necessarily relevant in particular areas of the country or with particular authorities that may not be appropriate.
I firmly believe that local government is democratic enough to ensure that proper consultation on such matters, as covered by the Bill, will take place. If it did not, the local voters would have their opportunity to make their views of such behaviour known at the next local authority election.


Local authorities do not need to be nannied in the way that the Bill proposes. Local authorities may make up their own minds about such issues. Indeed, most local authorities have a good record of doing so.
With the support of my hon. Friends, I tabled amendments Nos. 188 and 199, which are both consequential amendments that would delete redundant references to exceptions to the duty to consult. They are tidying-up amendments and would not be necessary if the House agreed to amendment No. 50.
The House should be attending to the need to put considerable time, effort and expertise into action to deal with energy conservation and not merely record intentions on great tonnages of paper. For instance, we know of the Government's highly successful green house programme, which was launched in 1990 to run for three years to encourage local authorities to introduce new heating and insulation schemes at a demonstration level.
We also know of the highly successful home energy efficiency scheme, which was launched in January 1991, since when more than 300,000 houses have benefited. It is encouraging to note that, for the current financial year, the target is 440,000 homes. That is action to deal with energy conservation—what we all want—in the interests of our constituents' welfare and of solving our overriding environmental concerns.
Looking through the Bill, I have great sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)—the more one reads, the more one realises how authoritarian it is. The Bill brings the busybody into every home in the country. Nothing brings our environmental enthusiasm into more discredit with the general public than empowering busybodies to interfere in people's homes and say what must be done, generally sticking their noses into people's affairs.
In any event, it is not an easy business to carry out. We know about the difficulties that ensued when local councils tried to evaluate every house in the country for the purposes of the council tax. They were not empowered to enter people's homes. In recent days we have heard of many difficulties in classifying houses for council tax bands. Those have arisen on the relatively simple criteria required for council tax banding. How much more difficult would it be to assess the extent to which individual houses are properly insulated?
1 pm
Whereas a whole street of houses could be banded similarly for council tax purposes, each house would be at a different stage of insulation. It might have its original insulation or insulation that has since deteriorated and householders might have taken steps to insulate their homes at different stages.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that this sounds remarkably like a Second Reading speech? I expect him to relate his remarks to the group of new clauses and amendments under consideration.

Mr. Arnold: I am referring to clause 2, particularly the provision that would be affected by amendment No. 50, which refers specifically to the duty on local authorities to draw up detailed plans and consult parish—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to new clause 2?

Mr. Arnold: I referred to amendment No. 50, which is in the group under consideration.
I was referring to the great difficulties involved in assessing insulation in umpteen million houses throughout the country. We would then have to consider the effects of the different heating systems, the different impact of various forms of fuel, and the access to those fuels. If the Bill were passed, it would cost local authorities vast amounts and cause householders to suffer thorough intrusion.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority environmental health officer has a role to play? When inspecting a block of flats or a building in his public health role, he could also take account of the energy efficiency side, and when advising or notifying householders, he could include energy efficiency as a criterion. Does he agree that a partnership approach with the private sector, in which advice is given, is more likely to be successful than an unworkable mandatory provision?

Mr. Arnold: That is exactly the point. If advice is given, it can include advice to individual householders about the availability of assistance with insulation and energy conservation measures that are made available by the positive programmes that the Government have put forward. I resent the diverting of energy, talent and resources into drawing up vast plans that do not necessarily result in action. My hon. Friend's example could lead to action in the case of individual householders. It would solve many problems and have a considerable environmental spin-off.
You will not be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am slightly controversial. I wonder why the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) proposed the Bill in the first place. He has assured us that he is greatly concerned with the environment. That is why he proposed a carbon tax at the last election. Not long after that general election we faced the sad necessity of holding a by-election in Newbury. The Liberal Democrat candidate found, no doubt to his amazement, that a carbon tax—the very tax that the Liberal party proposed—would be unpopular. Such a tax has been introduced in the form of VAT on fuel—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What has that to do with the group of amendments that we are now discussing?

Mr. Arnold: Value added tax on fuel is an important part of energy conservation, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one of the many measures that are being introduced to help conserve energy. I believe that, in considering plans to take forward the Bill, we should take into account steps that have already been taken.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not considering the Bill—we have gone beyond that and are now discussing a group of amendments. I expect the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to that group.

Mr. Arnold: I shall specifically deal with the plan that clause 2 attempts to impose. As I was trying to explain, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would cause an immense diversion of personnel resources away from necessary action. One of the extremely unfortunate spin-offs could be that the intrusion on people's lives might result in the


dissipation of the public's current enthusiasm for environmental issues. We know that VAT on fuel is unpopular, but it is, in great part, an environmental measure. If we introduce a plan that intrudes on people's homes—an Englishman's home is his castle—we shall tarnish the current enthusiasm for the environment.
An energy conservation plan as proposed in clause 2 would be extremely detrimental. I hope that amendment No. 50 will be carried and clause 2 deleted.

Mr. Bennett: I do not want to detain the House long, but I deplore the way in which the Government have behaved today. I do not complain if the Government want to block a private Member's Bill and organise opposition to it—that is entirely up to the Government. My complaint is that, by the way in which they have tabled amendments —particularly new clause 1—the Government have set out to waste a Friday. It would have been perfectly easy for the Minister to table a new clause that allowed the House to explore the Government's alternative to the Bill.
The Government signed up to the Rio commitment and have said that they are in favour of energy conservation. But when a reasonable Bill such as this is brought before the House to raise the profile of energy conservation and show people that they can do a lot to conserve energy if they have the money, the Government set out to block it. Instead of coming to the House and stating their strategy, they try to keep us tied to a bureaucratic group of amendments.
I can understand why the Government are in difficulties. The Government's strategy was based on the idea that the Energy Saving Trust would introduce schemes to encourage individuals to save energy. That was a perfectly reasonable strategy, but the Government's problem was that they could not find a way to finance the Energy Saving Trust. It was intended that there should be a levy on various industries, but it was extremely difficult to persuade the electricity industry to invest money. However, 12 months ago, the gas industry, through the gas regulator, put up some money for the Energy Saving Trust so that it could start to introduce individual schemes.
As new clause 1 suggests, if a survey is done and it is possible to see what is needed, a grant could be given to help facilitate the necessary action. But the new gas regulator gave evidence to the Environment Select Committee only a fortnight ago and said that she believed that it was illegal for the gas industry to make grants to the Energy Saving Trust.
The Government intended the Energy Saving Trust to be the main vehicle to carry out their Rio commitments —but the body has no money. The Minister should have told the House today that the Government have got themselves in a terrible muddle and are unlikely to be able to achieve their Rio commitments. Unless they get themselves organised quickly, by means of new legislation or in some other way, they will not reach those targets. Instead, the Government tabled this miserable little new clause.
The Minister should have dealt with the fundamental problem, which is that the Government's energy conservation policy has collapsed as a result of the actions taken by the gas regulator. Until the Government find the money for the Energy Saving Trust, I see no way forward. The Minister has a duty to make a statement soon to the House of Commons on how the Government's policies are to be carried forward. It is deplorable that all we have this

morning is new clause 1. Certainly, the Government's intention is to wreck the Bill, but if by some chance it got through, the effect of the new clause would be to make local authorities provide the community with information.
Such information would have been welcome, but until the Minister can find a major new strategy, this little new clause remains irrelevant. The Government must come up with alternatives. It would have been far better if the Government had supported the Bill and at least got the survey done, to raise people's consciousness of energy conservation.
It still amazes me that, when people buy houses, they spend a great deal of time on structural surveys, on deciding whether they can afford the mortgage—or more likely, the building society does—and on finding out what the council tax is likely to be, but they still do not bother to find out what the gas, electricity and oil bills will be. In the course of a year those may prove to be the highest bills that people face.
It would therefore have been far better if the Government had stressed the importance, when buying a house, of considering its energy costs. People should be urged when they become new owners to consider saving on their future bills by adopting what are often simple energy conservation measures.
Today the Government wasted an opportunity clearly to set out to the country how they intend to implement an energy strategy. Until they have one, they should seriously consider sensible measures such as this Bill and implement them quickly.

Mr. Stephen: I support amendment No. 50 and oppose new clauses 1, 4 and 5.
Of course energy conservation is important to all hon. Members and to all our constituents. Sources of energy are mostly scarce, and the wasteful burning of energy is a criminal waste of our nation's wealth. Thus, a sensible and effective policy of action to encourage all our citizens in their homes and places of work to conserve energy has my full support. However, I oppose the socialist and bureaucratic approach to this matter exemplified by clause 2, to which amendment No. 50 relates.
I could not believe my eyes when I first read the Bill, originating as it does from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a leading member of one of the two socialist parties. The Bill is nothing more and nothing less than a frontal attack on the independence and integrity of local government—Opposition Members are always wrongly attacking the Government for doing that—wrongly because we all know that the powers, responsibilities and moneys accorded to local government have enormously increased since 1979.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman speaks of an attack on the integrity and freedom of local authorities because of the imposition on them of a new statutory requirement. Perhaps he would like to reflect on the raft of such statutory requirements that central Government have placed on local authorities in recent years—including, under last year's Education Act, the requirement that local authorities be responsible for special educational needs. That statutory requirement imposes responsibilities and duties on local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there should be no such responsibilities?

Mr. Stephen: I should like to engage the hon. Gentleman in a debate on that subject but I fear that


Madam Deputy Speaker would not allow me to do so. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is against central Government imposing duties on local government in relation to education and being too prescriptive, so he must agree that it would be wrong for central Government to do that on energy conservation.

Mr. Battle: Was the hon. Gentleman in the House in 1985?

Mr. Stephen: No.

Mr. Battle: No doubt the hon. Gentleman would describe Mrs. Thatcher as a socialist because she passed the 1985 Act which imposed a duty on local authorities to check on the condition of the housing stock.

Mr. Stephen: I was not a Member at the time but if I had been I would have advised that it is quite wrong for central Government to be too prescriptive about such matters. The whole point of local government is that locally elected people are deemed to know what is going on in their areas and what is best for their electors, although the expenditure of vast sums of public money is legitimately a matter for the House and the Government.
The clause essentially says that we cannot trust local councillors to understand the energy needs of their areas or to use their existing powers to carry out an audit and assess what needs to be done. It says that we must order them to do that, and not only in general terms because the offending clause orders local government to take some specific actions. Councillors would be ordered to consult not just the people whom they think ought to be consulted but every parish and community council, irrespective of whether they think that it is relevant to do so. It would instruct them to consult their tenants, the Gas Consumers Council and the Office of Electricity Regulation, but, as was said earlier, they would not be instructed to consult the Gas Regulator or the Electricity Consumers Council.
The more that I read the prescriptive bureaucratic interventionist nonsense in the clause, the more I realise that my initial reaction to the Bill was right—that it is a frontal attack on the independence of local government.

Mr. Wells: What does my hon. Friend think that those plans which are to be drawn up for energy conservation will entail? Will they involve the removal of windows and their replacement with double glazing? Will they require roof insulation, which could call for much work on the existing fabric? Will they require the replacement of all external if not internal doors? The cost for the tenant or house owner could be enormous. In addition, the walls of many houses are only one brick thick and a second wall might be needed to keep in heat.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not strictly discussing energy conservation measures in this group of amendments.

Mr. Stephen: I listened a moment ago to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) discoursing far and wide over the subject. He told us about the Energy Efficiency Office and the gas regulator.
The point of the clause to which amendment No. 50 applies was exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for

Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). It points up the fact that the promoters of the Bill have not the vaguest idea how much the measures that they are proposing would cost. Frankly, they do not care, because they are much more interested in increasing governmental power and influence over our citizens and poking their noses into every nook and cranny of our constituents' affairs than in carefully assessing how much their socialist measures would cost.
If amendment No. 50 is not accepted, we will end up with plans, schemes, reams of paper, hundreds of committee meetings and hundreds more bureaucrats employed. It is a nightmare. There is, however, a way to achieve the objectives that I, the promoters of the Bill and those of my hon. Friends who have supported it want—by recognising that if one makes it in the financial interests of a householder, or of a business, to save energy, he is more than likely to do so.
I have the privilege of representing a constituency in which a company called Ricardo Consulting Engineers is based. It is at the forefront in the world development of internal combustion engines. The company is an expert in the field and advises motor manufacturers throughout the world on how to make their engines more efficient. Its services would not be so much in demand, however, if fuel costs had not increased and if the western world did not tax fuel or make car owners and fleet operators of vehicles in industry realise that it was in their economic interests to run fuel-efficient engines. It is precisely the same with our homes and the buildings in which we work, including, I hope, the Palace of Westminster. One of the most important ways to make it in someone's economic interests to run his establishment in an energy-efficient way is to increase the penalties for not doing so.
When the Liberal Democrat party floated the idea of a tax on energy some years ago, I and many of my hon. Friends thought that it was one of the few good ideas that it had come up with. We were therefore delighted when the Government had the courage to introduce such a tax—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going way outside the scope of the amendments. The grouping is fairly wide and I exercise judgment as to when someone has gone too far. The hon. Member has done so and must return more closely to the group.

Mr. Stephen: Rather than require local authorities to draw up plans and to poke their noses into our constituents' houses I would prefer it if the Government made more money available—they already make £68.9 million available—in the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office, which is 10 times the amount that was spent under Labour.
The Government passed the Electricity Act 1989, which provides that electricity suppliers must have regard to energy conservation and the 1991 building regulations are also relevant. Those were common-sense actions, and they put our constituents' money where it will do some good and not simply where it will create more paper, bureaucracy and committee meetings. "This Common Inheritance" sets out the Government's firm commitment to energy conservation.
Hon. Members will be aware of the best practice programme in industry and commerce, for which £15.2 million of Government money has been provided, which includes support for combined heat and power schemes.
The most sinister part of this nasty little Bill—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that the House is debating not the whole Bill but only one group of new clauses and amendments. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to those, or I shall require him to discontinue his speech.

Mr. Stephen: I was speaking to amendment No. 50, which is included in the group, and relates to the duty of the energy conservation authority, in clause 2(5)(a) to prepare plans and to consult
every parish or community council
and so on. I am speaking also to new clauses 1, 4 and 5, which relate to the plans that would be the unfortunate result of that bureaucratic process.
There is no point to having those plans unless something is done about them, which is why I referred to the most sinister part of this nasty little Bill—a clause that we shall debate later, which seeks to give powers to require, compel and oblige local authorities. Those words are popular with socialists, but are anathema to myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Bill makes an important effort to drawing attention to energy conservation. If it had been permissive, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would have my support. He might even have found my name among his supporters—although whether he would have welcomed that is a different matter.
In reality, the Bill is not permissive. I do not mean to be patronising, but although the Bill's instincts are right, its intention is wrong. There is a danger that we would establish a statutory framework requiring a bureaucracy that could ultimately detract from efforts, and certainly from financial resources. Part of that framework, which causes me considerable concern, is seen in new clauses 1 and 4.
Local authorities make significant, albeit it still insufficient, efforts to bring their housing stock up to standards of energy efficiency that we all hope to be achieved. As I said in an intervention earlier, £350 million is already spent by local authorities on home improvements—much of it on energy efficiency. There is no question of its importance, in terms of its effect on heat, fuel and power resources, and in terms of damage to the environment. There is no difference between us, in our ambition to see improvements. The question is whether the Bill would achieve that or whether, behind the cloak of respectability—a Bill named the Energy Conservation Bill —it would create costs that would take away from resources now allocated for that purpose. In other words, we would have a wonderful and costly framework but not much extra activity.
I have already drawn attention to the Bill's intrusiveness, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred. The audit would target private and public sector housing alike. I would have thought that degree of intrusiveness would concern Liberal Democrats. Although we may not always agree, their desire to guard against too much intrusion was a proud tenet of the traditional Liberal party.
There is also an element of jobs for the boys in the framework provided by new clauses 1 and 4, in that housing and environmental health departments would be closely involved in undertaking surveys. That is contrary to the thrust of this Government, which is to contract out and

to make sure that services performed in connection with housing stock are not necessarily provided by council employees, making the council an enabling authority.

Mr. Battle: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his remarks with those of his hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who regularly state that the key role of a local authority as a housing authority is to be an enabling and strategic authority doing precisely the kind of inquiry that the Bill suggests?

Mr. Taylor: There is a difference of emphasis here. I was saying that implicit in the Bill is that local authorities should be carrying out that work, whereas I am saying that it should be part of the contracted-out area. One of the great successes of housing management, as a result of Conservative initiatives, has been that much of the social housing stock, for which I have a profound respect because it is vital as part of the fabric of the community, is nevertheless now largely being made through housing associations and housing corporations. That movement has improved the benefits to the tenants.
I am concerned about where the costs of the measures would impinge, because it is also implicit in the Bill that there will be associated costs. Are they to be taken out of the housing revenue account, out of the general resources of the council, or will the councils turn to the Government and ask for further assistance? Those matters have not yet been properly addressed. Perhaps they were exhaustively addressed during the two hours in Committee.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Perhaps I missed a trick. I was so concentrating on the Finance Bill that I forgot to volunteer for his Committee. But he and I spent many interesting hours together on the Finance Bill. I think that exposure of taxation plans is very important. The Government should be explicit rather than implicit. Many of my interventions this morning were within that framework.
It is, perhaps, from the point of view of the public, undesirable to have VAT on fuel. I happen to have supported it and, indeed, advocated it before it was introduced in the March 1992 Budget. I have a good record on that. Indeed, I made it clear to my constituents before the March Budget that I was advocating it.

Mr. Beith: At the general election?

Mr. Taylor: Oh, yes. Some of us are very—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not going to have some historical survey of energy taxes that are not directly related to this group of amendments.

Mr. Taylor: I am cut off in my prime, but of course I respect what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will merely say that I have never shied from addressing my constituents with the implications of the measures that I am proposing. But that is the crux of it, because there are costs involved in the structure of new clauses 1 and 4, which we are discussing today.
I fear that the very party that is proposing the Bill under the cloak of energy conservation—the Liberal Democrats, and I know that the Bill has all-party support and that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the responsibility of leading—was the party that, initially, proposed carbon taxes and talked about zero rating of fuel being an


anomaly. But now, through the back door, possibly, it is increasing council taxes, which I accept are also a way of passing on a form of taxation to the public.
An increase in council tax for my constituents would be very unattractive bearing in mind that the largest part of my constituency is covered by part of Elmbridge borough council, which has no overall control and is one of the highest spending councils in the country. We hope that, on 5 May, that anomaly will be corrected and that the Conservatives will be back in force in Elmbridge and the local residents protected from high charges on council tax. I certainly would not want to pass a Bill that could possibly increase the burdens on my council tax payers. That is the crux of my concern about the measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend will have seen that new clause 1 is entitled "Inspection of plans etc." Does it strike him that both the taxpayer and the tenant or owner of a house—having inspected the plans under new clause 1—have no right of appeal should they find those plans unacceptable in any way? He may find the physical plans for his home, which he is being required to modify for energy conservation purposes, unacceptable or he simply may not be able to afford it.

Mr. Taylor: That is an interesting point. It hides within it two separate points which I wish to touch on. The first is the virtual intrusiveness, to which we have referred before, and the second is the cost. There is no doubt that there is a vagueness in what the plans imply. That should cause considerable concern. The Government's new clause 1 makes an effort to say what should be done with the plan and the Bill contains certain pointers, but there is a vagueness which could mean that in the wrong hands in a local authority, the plan could lead to abuses.
Our job as humble Back-Bench Members of Parliament is to hold up legislation to careful scrutiny. In those circumstances, I express my anxiety on behalf of the citizens that we are giving a right of inspection, audit or analysis to people in respect of not only the public but the private housing stock. There is a grave danger. A landlord could ask for an inspection of his own stock of housing if that was part of an agreement with the tenants in the first place, but I question whether such powers should be available for public housing stocks on a basis which is not necessarily voluntary.

Mr. Battle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his own mortgage deeds probably specify that his mortgage company has a right to inspect any house on which it has a mortgage?

Mr. Taylor: That is true. As a borrower, I read the document before I signed it. As I have read the document and signed it, I could not object. In terms of the reaction between the local authority and private housing stocks, what document would the householders have signed which enabled them to say that they agreed to inspection? The passage of a Bill which instructs or obliges on a statutory basis a local authority to make that inspection is not a sufficient sign of consent by the individual who owns the private house. I have many legal friends around me from whom I would willingly take an intervention if they thought that I was on a faulty point in law.

Mr. Butler: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for the expertise.

Mr. Butler: I rise merely to say that all my hon. Friends around me are legal. Some of them are also lawyers.

Mr. Taylor: I am not entirely sure that that was a helpful intervention. It shows that there is a variety of opinions and backgrounds among my hon. Friends. I shall now focus now on the Bill.
The second element is the cost. I shall willingly give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed or the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who has considerable expertise on the matter, if I get it wrong. One of the things that we have attempted to do in Government-sponsored legislation and initiatives such as the home energy efficiency grants is to focus on detailed measures to improve houses and to provide a grant for them. The grants provided are up to a maximum of £305 for combined loft insulation and draught-proofing. They are currently available to homeowners and tenants in both the public and private sector.
The grants are available to be requested rather than imposed on tenants and owners who receive one or more of the following benefits: income support, family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit or disability working allowance.
I should like the Government to pay more attention to schemes which focus on the people most in need. It removes the stigma which Opposition Members have placed on VAT on fuel when one considers that not only are people who receive benefits protected by the compensation on VAT on fuel but that schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme are targeted to improve their houses and, therefore, reduce the overall cost of their fuel bills.

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept none the less that, whoever funds the scheme, it would be helpful if the starting point for insulation of a house was a plan showing what was most effective?

Mr. Taylor: No doubt a plan would be useful, and careful thought needs to be given to it, but the problem is that someone drawing up a plan might reach a different conclusion. Views differ on how best to conserve energy, and as properties differ their energy losses vary. It is difficult for a house owner to know whether he should insulate his loft or—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is trying my patience. He is going way beyond what we should be discussing.

Mr. Taylor: I agree, but that is a hazard of giving way to colleagues. Nevertheless, it is jolly interesting and it is relevant that people know why some of us have reservations about the Bill. We oppose not energy saving or conservation but the way in which they are delivered to the public. I do not doubt that local authorities, in response to public pressure, will be asked to introduce plans, to issue guidance and to become much more involved in energy efficiency schemes rather than being obliged to do so by an Act. The Bill is an honourable one. The subject must be addressed, but not as the Bill proposes.


Many new clause are in the group. I am not sure whether I wish to speak to all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), with his acute legal brain, dealt with many of the wider issues.
There is no question but that the Government are doing their best. They are committed to a reduction of 15 per cent. in their own energy consumption over the next five years. In those circumstances, I believe that they have nothing to be embarrassed about.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with our concerns, such as how the Bill's costs will be paid for; whether the statutory framework is likely to increase the number of schemes or detract from manpower and cash resources; whether he thinks that the intrusiveness implied in the Bill is acceptable; whether he believes that such a Bill should apply to the private and public sector—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister goes down that road, he too will be out of order.

Mr. Taylor: I am not, of course, questioning your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but these matters have been discussed this morning. I was risking your patience only inasmuch as questions need to be answered and new clauses need to be clarified.

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend will recall that I oppose subsections (5) and (6) as such consultation has little point. As it is proposed, however, does he think it odd that the bodies listed are community bodies that have no particular expertise or technical knowledge? Surely expert bodies should be consulted. The Bill makes no reference to the Department of Energy being consulted yet the Government are supposed to implement the Bill under regulation. Is not that an anomaly?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is extending my list of questions about the Bill and I am grateful to him for that. He has underlined my point about this group of new clauses and amendments. Even at this stage, there are still serious questions to which 1 for one have yet to hear clear answers. Some of the amendments are merely probing amendments and the intention has been to elicit the answers that we require because, ultimately, we have to justify the Bill to our constituents.
New clause 3 is not included in the group so I cannot mention it. Nevertheless, it refers to the Secretary of State's powers to give guidance on the conduct of investigations. That is a matter—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is condemned out of his own mouth—he had better move on quickly.

Mr. Taylor: The complexity of the matter is trying my patience, too, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is certainly not your fault.
It is important that the Government should be consulted as it is the House that might give permission for the Bill to be passed.

Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend saying that we should either accept amendment No. 50, which would mean that no consultation was required, or that the list of consultees should be extended to include, for example, mortgagees who clearly have a direct interest in anything done to the fabric of their property?

Mr. Taylor: One of the first points made was that there should be consultation with specialist bodies outside. The overriding need is to give permission. In the public sector, through the Housing Corporation, it is possible to give permission if a tenancy is signed. The situation is different in the private sector but the consultation needs to be broader.

Mr. O'Neill: I have not been here for all of the hon. Gentleman's speech although I have heard a fair bit of the debate. I do not think that I have missed much as his remarks appear to be going around in circles. He has spoken at some length about consultation and has made great play of tenants, residents and community associations to which most of us listen willingly on many other matters. One might have thought that they had something to say about their homes. Perhaps the hon, Gentleman will comment on the inclusion of the Gas Consumers Council and the Office of Electricity Regulation, to say nothing of bodies interested in the environment.
One would have thought that there would be no question but that these bodies were appropriate for consultation. Before the hon. Gentleman draws his remarks to a close, will he be a little more specific about which organisations he believes should be consulted? Many of us will wish to introduce a Bill of a similar character and. if we can secure more support every time that we do so, we could ease its passage. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could be helpful and specify which of the organisations mentioned in clause 2 he considers appropriate.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that specific point. He referred to the Gas Consumers' Council and the Office of Electricity Regulation, which are mentioned in clause 2(5)((v). I have no objection to their being included in that clause. I was saying that many other specialist and professional bodies need to be involved. If a private resident has a mortgage, the mortgage company needs to be consulted because the occupant will have made an agreement with that company when he signed the mortgage documents. Other regulatory authorities also need to be included.
Now that we have had the opportunity to air these matters on the Floor of the House, we may find that other bodies with specialist knowledge will want to be part of the process and will take a close interest in new clause 1 which covers the inspection of plans. They would want to inspect the plans being proposed by the local authority.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House whether he supports amendment No. 50, which would do away with the need for consultation altogether, or whether he is in favour of embellishing the list of consultees with additional bodies? The longer the list, the greater the expense. What is the purpose of it anyway?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has, typically, picked up a flaw in the Bill and, to an extent, in my argument, which has been following the Bill. My worry is that if the Bill goes through in its current form, there will be extra costs if we ask for further consultation to be carried out. That is accepted; it is inherent in the Bill. If I thought that the Bill would complete its passage through the House this afternoon, I should be anxious to ensure that more bodies were consulted because I am not entirely satisfied about the


way in which it is proposed to carry out the consultation. I am not sure that the list is as broad as it should be, especially given that the matter involves the private sector.
My instincts are that the Bill would impose a bureaucratic structure with inherent costs, which would detract from the money and energy spent on efficiency programmes. If I had a free choice in the matter, I would choose the second option, which is not to have the Bill and to spend much more time and energy encouraging people to save through conservation schemes and to encourage local authorities to come up with their own ideas, which could be discussed with their local electorates and put before them. That is much better local democracy. I know that some of the better local authorities are doing that.
New clause 4 refers to charges for copy plans, new clause 5 refers to the power to fix charges and new clause 6 refers to charges for copy plans. Those new clauses alone show the incredible complexity of the Bill and the prospect that, under each, there will be extra costs and burdens on local authorities. In those circumstances, we have a duty, which is totally disconnected from the fact that local elections are coming up, to try, in the interests of our constituents, to protect them from the extra costs that would be imposed on local authorities.
We have not been assured by my hon. Friend the Minister, who has perhaps been derelict in his duty on the matter, that if the Bill is passed, there will be extra Government funding for local authorities and we have not been told by him whether there would be an adjustment to standard spending assessments to accommodate the Bill.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about his duty to his constituents. It would be helpful to his constituents and to the public at large if he explained just what is going on. Some people may be under the illusion that we are carrying out a careful scrutiny of the implications of the Bill to improve the legislative process. It is important that the public at large, including some who are listening carefully here, should understand that this is a deliberate, time-wasting process, designed to talk out a useful piece of legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared openly to say that that is what he is about so that no one is under any illusion about the nature of the activity this morning?

Mr. Taylor: What I am about is attempting to discuss a considerable number of amendments. We are still on the first group. The reason for that is that hon. Members on both sides have decided to take the Bill extremely seriously and to discuss the amendments at great length. In no way can I or my colleagues be thought to be hostile to energy conservation, but there is a good way and a bad way in which to go about it.
The good way is to encourage the existing schemes, such as the home energy efficiency schemes, the local authority schemes and various schemes put forward by the Select Committee on the Environment in a valuable background document to the debate. The bad way is the structured approach in the Bill, with statutory plans. Once one gets into the area of statutory plans, it is inevitable, in dealing with new clauses 1,4,5 and 6, that one has at some length to go into the problems that they cause for our constituents and the potential costs that they have for our constituents.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer, because other hon. Members will undoubtedly want to speak and there are one or two amendments left to cover. Whether they are covered in due course is not a matter for me. What is a matter for me is to address completely the point that hon. Members have a genuine desire to see energy efficiency. I shall not fall into the trap of talking about alternative ways that that may be done through the VAT system, but I shall say specifically that my conclusion is that the clauses under discussion would set up a bureaucracy which is not merited; they would bear costs and, therefore, I still feel that I have further questions to ask about the Bill. I am sure that, in the passage of time that is left, those further questions will be both posed and—hopefully—answered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Baldry: Before I move new clause 2, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your clarification of whether the vote on new clause 1 covers the other new clauses and amendments in that group?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have passed new clause 1. Nothing else has yet been passed.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you clarify that I voted no by voice? As I understand your ruling, you heard more ayes than noes. Is that correct?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not hear any no at all.

Mr. Wells: In that case, may I make it clear that I oppose new clause 1?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that it is too late. It is unusual for any hon. Member to speak so softly that he is not heard. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wells: It is most unusual in my case, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Baldry: May I turn to the group of amendments which is headed by new clause 2? It is a group in which Madam Speaker has put together a wide-ranging—

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the House and certainly for myself, would you confirm that we have spent about four hours discussing a group of amendments, one of which has been accepted in the shape of new clause 1, and that all of the others fall because the proponents of the amendments have chosen after a lengthy debate not to include them in the Bill or consider them, or are they coming up later?

Madam Deputy Speaker: They will come up later in the usual way. Whether there will be sufficient time is not for me to say, but everything is perfectly in order.

Mr. Baldry: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make it perfectly clear that I moved new clause 1 and it has been accepted. Certainly, at the appropriate time, it is my intention to move amendment No. 50, which is the only other amendment that stands in the Government's name in the group. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am entirely in your hands over when I am able to move amendment No. 50 and what is the appropriate time to move it. When you tell me that I can move amendment No. 50, I shall move amendment No. 50.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The simple answer, is not yet.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the acceptance of new clause I, will you make it clear to me and the House whether we shall be permitted to vote on new clause 6, after, of course, we have discussed the next group of amendments, which begins with new clause 2?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That will depend on other decisions that have not yet been made. I am sorry to sound delphic but the occupant of the Chair must make it clear that one can deal only with the present situation because other events may occur in the meantime. So I do not offer hostages to fortune.

Mr. Wells: I am sorry to persist on this matter, but I need to understand. I have consulted the Clerk on exactly how the votes will be taken. I am very much in favour of new clauses 6 and 4, both of which are in my name., and I cannot find out exactly when or if we shall be permitted to vote on either clause. If you cannot help us now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when will you be able to help us?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall be able to help as we get to each new clause.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should you decide to permit a Division on one of the new clauses or amendments in the group that has just been passed, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) will have recovered his voice sufficiently to hear his intentions.

New Clause 2

COMMENCEMENT

'This Act, except sections 4 and 5, shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different provisions, different purposes of the same provision and different areas.'.—[Mr. Baldry.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Baldry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New Clause 3—Power of Secretary of State to give guidance on conduct of investigations—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, give such guidance as he considers appropriate to energy conservation authorities on how to carry out functions under section 2(1)(a) or (d) above.
(2) An energy conservation authority carrying out functions under section 2(1)(a) or (d) above shall have regard to any guidance for the time being given under subsection (1) above in relation to those functions.'.
Amendment No. 92, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'and'.
Amendment No. 93, in page 2, line 4, after `practicable', insert 'and cost effective'.
Amendment No. 181, in page 2, line 20, leave out from `cent.' to end of line 22 and insert
'or such other percentage as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute; and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;'.
Amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—

`(5A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above what measures are in its opinion cost effective, the authority shall have regard to any guidance on the question for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.'.
Amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 26, at end insert—
'(6A) Nothing in this section shall be taken as conferring any power of entry on any energy conservation authority.'.
Amendment No. 51, in page 3, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Amendment No. 153, in page 3, line 27, after 'plan', insert 'and any modification'.
Amendment No. 182, in page 3, line 28, at end insert—
'(8) Orders under subsection (2)(a) above may make different provision with respect to different cases or classes of case.'.
Amendment No. 52, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 29 to 45.
Amendment No. 203, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
Amendment No. 196, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'a date' and insert
'such date or dates as he considers appropriate'.
Amendment No. 199, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'all'.
Amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, after 'plans', insert 'and modifications'.
Amendment No. 197, in page 3, line 29, after 'plans', insert or parts of plans, as he may specify'.
Amendment No. 206, in page 3, leave out lines 31 to 41.
Amendment No. 147, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'all such plans' and insert 'any plan or modification'.
Amendment No. 201, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'all such plans' and insert
'a plan or part of a plan specified under subsection (1) above'.
Amendment No. 193, in page 3, leave out line 32.
Amendment No. 204, in page 3, line 32, leave out `shall' and insert 'may'.
Amendment No. 146, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'such plans' and insert 'the plan or modification'.
Amendment No. 198, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'such plans' and insert 'the plan or the part'.
Amendment No. 171, in page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34.
Amendment No. 170, in page 3, line 33, after 'may', insert
`, with the consent of the Treasury,'.
Amendment No. 169, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'a Scheme for making'.
Amendment No. 148, in page 3, line 34, leave out 'of such plans'.
Amendment No. 195, in page 3, line 35, leave out lines 35 to 41.
Amendment No. 205, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
Amendment No. 200, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'above;' to end of line 41.
Amendment No. 32, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'with' to first 'different' in line 41.
Amendment No. 167, in page 3, line 42, after '(4)', insert 'Subject to subsection (5) below,'.
Amendment No. 149, in page 3, line 43, after 'plan', insert 'or modification'.
Amendment No. 166, in page 3, line 45, at end insert-
'(5) Regulations under subsection (4) above may make different provision for different cases, or classes of case, including different provision for different areas.'.
Amendment No. 53, Title, line 4, leave out from `Kingdom;' to second 'and' in line 5.
Amendment No. 194, line 5, leave out from 'powers' to second
`and' in line 5 and insert 'to secure the implementation of such plans'.

Mr. Baldry: The amendments grouped with new clause 2 cover five main areas. New clause 2 deals with the commencement of the Act. New clause 3 and amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 43 would require authorities to have regard to guidance on cost-effectiveness provided by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 would change the estimated energy savings that local authorities should consider in their plans to 5 per cent. or such other percentages as the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, substitute. Amendments Nos. 153, 147, 151, 146, 148 and 149 extend the local authority duty to send modifications as well as plans to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State's duty to take action on modifications as well as plans. The remainder of amendments in the group deal with the clause headed
Duties of the Secretary of State".
So there are five clear strands to the group of amendments.
It may be sensible to discuss, first, our views on the duties that the Bill would impose on the Secretary of State; secondly, the new powers of the Secretary of State, that have been suggested by hon. Members; thirdly, the new clause on commencement that the Government have suggested; and finally, the amendments that would extend the local authority duty to send modifications as well as plans to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State's duty to take action on modification as well as plans.
We have proposed an amendment that would delete the duty on the Secretary of State in clauses 2(7) and 3. If authorities are not to be required to produce plans, it is illogical to compel those who do produce plans to send them to the Secretary of State. It is just as illogical to require the Secretary of State to publish a timetable for the implementation of such plans, include specified material in that timetable or make regulations to secure the implementation of the plans.
Regardless of the merits of imposing a duty on authorities to draw up energy conservation plans, what would be the benefit of requiring local authorities to send such plans to the Secretary of State or of imposing other duties on the Secretary of State? After all, we are talking about local authority plans that set out the steps that the authorities wish to take in the local area. Local authorities, not central Government, would be responsible for drawing up and implementing the plans.

Mr. Beith: If that is the Minister's view, why does he require local authorities to submit waste management plans? The provisions are closely modelled on the system that he operates to require local authorities to submit waste management plans so that the overall national strategy can be understood.

Mr. Baldry: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the plans are analogous with waste management plans shows the amount of work that he is expecting local authorities to undertake in the energy plans. Waste management plans are fairly substantial documents but they do not involve a local authority having to conduct an audit of every house or a sample of houses

in its district. No useful purpose will be served by the Secretary of State's having perhaps more than 600 such plans landing on his desk.
I see no point in requiring the Secretary of State to prepare timetables. It cannot be sensible to require the Secretary of State to publish a timetable for the implementation of what are, after all, local authority plans. The authority will have prepared the plan, and considered its content and priorities in the light of available resources. But once all the detailed work has been done by the local authority—no doubt careful arrangements will have been made to ensure that the necessary funds are available at the right time—subsections (2) and (3) of clause 2 and clause 3 propose that the Secretary of State, not local authorities, should draw up the timetable for implementation.
The Secretary of State cannot be expected to know the time that the work will take, the resources that the local authority is prepared to provide or the date at which those resources will become available. I find it curious, given that local authorities are constantly suggesting that there is too much interference by Government Departments, that it is seriously suggested that the Secretary of State should have all those responsibilities. In view of the huge amount of information in the plans and the fact that the Secretary of State would have so many to consider, it would be unrealistic to ask the Secretary of State to set a timetable. The obvious people to draw up a timetable are the local authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister and the Government keep saying that they want us to comply with our international obligations and ensure that, nationally, we use and conserve energy much more efficiently. They cannot then say that they are unwilling to do something that will provide the information to enable us to judge how well we as a nation do, could do, and should do to meet our targets. The Government cannot say that that requires too much exercise and effort. It may be better to leave it to local authorities to carry out the exercise if they are happy to do it, rather than to leave it to the Government. A recent example in which the Government, through an agency, conducted the assessment of council tax valuations was hardly a mega-success.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has been in and out of the Chamber today like a yo-yo and was not present for some of the relevant comments. The thrust of what I said earlier—I shall repeat itas it is equally relevant now—was that we naturally expect local authorities and local housing authorities to have regard to the energy efficiency of their housing stock. We already expect local authorities, as part of their housing investment programme submissions, to have regard to the energy efficiency of their housing stock, but we object to the Bill because it simply imposes a further statutory regulatory burden on local authorities that will not add much to the total sum of human knowledge. It will simply impose a burden on local authorities and an extra cost on taxpayers. It will not enhance the cause of energy efficiency.
We believe—Conservative Members have repeatedly made this clear today—that local authorities have an important role to play in energy efficiency. It is important that local authorities should take energy efficiency


seriously, but a power for the Secretary of State to control in detail the timetable of what those local authorities do is unrealistic and unduly bureaucratic.
We work closely with local authorities on energy efficiency. Many hon. Members will know that energy efficiency and energy conservation formed a central theme of the Government's green house demonstration programme. Not only has that programme been instrumental in significantly raising energy efficiency awareness among local authorities—it has been the seedcorn for the large amount of work that local authorities are now undertaking to improve energy efficiency in their housing stock.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—he is not in the Chamber now but he has been an assiduous attender today—prayed in aid a pamphlet supporting the Bill which gives a number of examples of what local authorities are already doing, without the need for legislation, to improve the energy efficiency of their housing stock.
The green house demonstration programme, launched in 1990 as an important element of our policies to combat global warming by means of increased energy efficiency, had as its aim the establishment of a national network of reputable demonstration schemes for council housing, to show how energy efficiency could be improved. In the three years of the programme, which concluded at the end of the 1993-94 financial year, no fewer than 186 schemes across 130 local authorities had been completed or were still in being, and funding over the life of the programme totalled about £60 million—a substantial achievement in a short time.
Part of the success of the programme lies in the approach adopted to assessing schemes. To encourage radical thinking about energy efficiency and a logical and thorough approach to it, local authorities were encouraged to submit schemes in the context of good stock condition information, together with a developed and approved energy policy for themselves. The schemes were assessed in two categories: strategic schemes which demonstrated well-proven measures, combined in integrated packages that were known to be effective; and innovative schemes that demonstrated known technology.

Mr. O'Neill: I realise that this Bill does not cover Scotland, although we had hoped to amend it to ensure that it did.
I represent a constituency comprising wards from several local authorities. It is very frustrating to have to explain to one group of constituents and voters why they are not getting the benefits of some of the schemes that the Minister has mentioned—which have been replicated in Scotland by the Scottish Office—while the residents in other authorities' areas are. It is those differences between local authorities that the Bill is intended to attack.
We want the best standards provided for all our constituents. Without the sort of legislative underpinning that the Bill offers, that consistency of approach right across the country will not be achieved. It should not be left to the whim of local authorities to decide to implement energy saving schemes of the kind we all know to be desirable. Consistency is surely in everyone's interest.
Two local authorities are part of my constituency: Clackmannan, a small Labour authority, and Stirling, a district council. These two adjacent authorities under

different political control have different political priorities, but the needs of their citizens in respect of energy efficiency are exactly the same.

Mr. Baldry: I shall have to crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am in danger of being repetitious—if only because there has been a moveable cast on the Opposition Benches for today's debate; hon. Members have been coming and going all the time, so I am not sure whether they heard the points that I made earlier.
The whole point about the green house demonstration programme is that it was a demonstration programme. As I said, it was spread across 130 local authorities in England. As with any such scheme, one envisaged that local authorities that were not part of it would go and see what was being done by those that were, to see what lessons could be learnt. There is certainly no reason why local authorities should not learn from the best practice of those that took part in the scheme.
Newark and Sherwood have frequently been mentioned in these debates in the context of the work that they have done on their own housing stock. That scheme was part of the green house demonstration programme and under existing legislation there is nothing to prevent other local authorities from undertaking exactly the same sort of work as that carried out by Newark and Sherwood.
The Newark and Sherwood schemes, which have been prayed in aid, demonstrated that substantial savings could be made on housing stock. It was not a question of Newark and Sherwood asking for extra resources. As I have repeatedly said, we expect all local authorities, irrespective of political complexion and location, to have regard to the energy efficiency of their housing stock.
Every housing authority in England is obliged each year, when bidding for resources for the housing programme for the forthcoming year, to make a submission to the Department of the Environment under the housing investment programme. As I have said several times, we have made it clear that those local authorities are expected to outline the steps that they are taking to promote energy efficiency in their housing stock.

Mr. Battle: The Minister cannot shelter behind the notion that he is protecting local authorities from extra legislation. Many local authorities have signed up to support the Bill: the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities all want the Bill. Why does the Minister purport to know better than them and say that he is protecting them? Surely they know what they can carry out, what they are required to do and how they can deliver. The Minister is playing parliamentary games so that the Bill is talked out because he does not have the guts to come clean and say that the Government are opposed to it in principle.

Mr. Baldry: I am amazed to find that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has not been listening to what I have said in the debate, at Question Time on Wednesday, and on the "Today" programme this morning, which is that we oppose the Bill because we think that it will place an unreasonable regulatory burden on local authorities and an unnecessary cost on taxpayers. In so far as some local authorities say that they favour the Bill's principles, they do so because, if the Bill were passed, they would automatically be able to say to Parliament, "You have


placed this statutory burden and obligation upon us. Therefore, we expect central Government—the taxpayers —to fund this new burden."
As the hon. Member for Leeds, West knows, that is the way in which local authorities negotiate every year with central Government when they think that new burdens have been placed upon them. As we have heard, the lowest estimate for meeting the Bill's requirements is about £23 million, but that is the most optimistic estimate of what it would cost to carry out the audits. There are better ways to spend such money on promoting energy efficiency. It could be used to extend the home energy efficiency scheme to another 125,000 homes. If the hon. Member for Leeds, West has not understood the Government's concerns about the Bill, he must not have been listening on Wednesday, today or at any time.
I spoke about the green house demonstration programme and said that all schemes had to meet strict criteria. They included the ability to achieve a minimum CO2 reduction of 15 per cent; a minimum reduction in total energy use of 25 per cent; affordable warmth for tenants; and a minimum financial contribution from the local authority of 25 per cent. In addition, schemes had to meet an excellence rating which was characterised by a high strategic rating, a high CO2 reduction and a low payback period for the proposed work. Scheme bids from local authorities were assessed by my Department's regional offices and ranked first by region and then nationally in the context of available resources.
The range of projects representing proven technologies demonstrates the benefits of integrated packages of heating, insulation, controlled ventilation and advice to tenants. However, the programme has supported some more innovative schemes, including heat-recovery ventilation, energy management systems and low-energy lighting.
With the Government's help, an enormous amount has been going on in local authorities in recent years to promote energy efficiency. Through the building research energy conservation support unit, the Department of the Environment continues to monitor output from the programme. The key findings are already evident, however. Targets for energy savings and carbon dioxide reductions are likely to be achieved in the majority of schemes and are surpassed in some.
It would have been wrong for the Government simply to sit back and say that the green house demonstration programme was a success and that they did not have to do any more—and we have not taken that view. Although the programme was successful in showing the way to achieve improved energy efficiency, we know that local authorities need to be guided and encouraged further to maximise the take-up of energy efficiency schemes. That is why, drawing on the experiences gained from the green house demonstration programme, we required local authorities to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes from last year on. In that way, local authorities consider energy efficiency as a matter of course, rather than as an optional extra.
Performance on energy efficiency is one factor that my Department considers when assessing housing investment programme allocations. We backed up the requirement by

issuing guidance—"Energy Efficiency in Council Housing". Since its launch last year, the guidance has been well received. Some hon. Members present will be familiar with the content and the approach that it advocates.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West has been scurrying around his hon. Friends. If he had been in his place he would have known that his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) expressed concern about the fact that insufficient advice was being given to local authorities. Our key aim is to set out the steps that local authorities must take to develop a sound energy efficiency policy.
Those steps are not novel. Any organisation might sensibly consider them, when devising and carrying through an energy efficiency policy. As a consequence of our work and guidance many local authorities are doing so as a matter of course. They are identifying the range of interests that potentially need to be involved in developing successful energy efficiency policy; establishing the base position, including assessing the energy efficiency performance of stock and the resources being spent on energy-related improvements; devising and setting policy, including the establishment of aims, objectives and targets; putting policy into practice, including how to integrate energy efficiency into wider works and maintenance programmes, as part of the housing investment process; and finally, monitoring and evaluating, including assessing the need to review progress periodically and to revisit objectives and targets.
I hope that hon. Members—certainly those who attended our previous debates and the debate today—will recognise that many of those steps touch on ground that is dealt with in the Bill. They are related to the local authority's stock and provide further evidence of the need to step back and reflect on what local authorities are already doing about energy efficiency—a lot is being done —without placing the burden of additional duties on them and on central Government. Additional statutory duties carry significant costs.
We have no intention of letting slip the momentum fuelled by the green house demonstration programme. The Department will shortly publish an updated and consolidated version of the guidance and we shall keep the energy efficiency component that is incorporated in the housing investment programme under review.
Some hon. Members tabled amendments that would require authorities to have regard to any guidance on cost-effectiveness provided by the Secretary of State. That is probably a good idea, because the Bill contains no reference to cost-effectiveness. That may be for reasons that we shall never understand. Energy conservation authorities are asked to decide what energy conservation measures are desirable and practicable, but it is also essential that those measures are cost-effective. That criterion must be applied to the assessment of any recommendations arising from an energy audit exercise.
There is little point in pursuing a recommendation to insulate all lofts in an area this year if half the roofs will need extensive refurbishment next year—it is better to combine the jobs and reduce costs. Appropriate regard to combining jobs is an important factor. That is something that certain local authorities do, and all local authorities should take into account.
Scheduling of blocks of work will also have an impact on the cost-effectiveness of the energy efficiency refurbishment programme. The prices that it is possible to


negotiate with contractors vary hugely according to many significant factors, and the number of installations is a key factor. Many local authorities know that already. The scope to negotiate a keen price increases markedly if nearby jobs can be grouped together.
Having due regard to the quality of work is also an important aspect of the cost-effectiveness of investment in energy efficiency. Of course it can be incorporated into plans in many ways. They include adherence to good practice in selecting and applying energy efficiency measures—for example, the EEO's best practice programme and the Department's green house programme provide impartial information on the effectiveness of a wide range of energy efficiency measures; ensuring that contractors follow the required standards of good practice as set by, for example, the British Standards Institution, or are accredited by, for example, the British Board of Agrément; ensuring that the measures have been properly applied—for example, by infra-red thermographic assessment of the application of insulation; and providing adequate guidance to occupiers, which is often overlooked in energy efficiency investment programmes.
It is important that occupiers fully understand the measures taken. It is essential that the people who will, or will not, be making energy savings are told about the measures, how they can save energy and how they should be operated.
There is no point to preparing a plan that includes measures that will cost a great deal and save little energy. There is no point in taking cheaper measures when they will have little effect on energy efficiency. If plans had to be prepared and implemented, money would have to be found—and it would have to come from taxpayers—and well spent.
There are already many sources of the cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures. Basic guidance is included in leaflets produced in my Department's "helping the Earth begins at home" campaign. More detailed information is available from the Building Research Establishment. There are tried and tested methods of working out whether an approach will provide value for money—such as that known as net present value. The guidance might take a form similar to that proposed by one of my hon. Friends.
The details were set out in an amendment that was tabled but not selected for debate—which I regret. However, on balance, it would be preferable for the Secretary of State to have a power to give guidance rather than to present detailed guidance in primary legislation.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister determined to continue reading his brief, so that he can personally talk out this widely supported measure and make sure that everybody knows that the Government blocked the Bill? Or will the Minister sit down at 2·29 pm, so that one of his hon. Friends can do his dirty work for him?

Mr. Baldry: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman still has not understood the situation. I will clearly spell it out for him. He had every opportunity to negotiate with the Government amendments that would have made the Bill one that could have passed speedily through the House. The right hon. Gentleman chose not to do that.
We have consistently and persistently made it clear why we believe that the Bill in its present form would not be of benefit, in that it would place extra statutory burdens on

local authorities and extra costs on taxpayers. We do not believe that would be to anyone's advantage. The money that the Bill, if unamended, would cost would be far better spent on other energy efficiency measures.
The Bill certainly cannot be seen as a touchstone of the Government's firm commitment to energy efficiency matters. This year, we doubled the EEO's budget and more than doubled the home energy efficiency scheme budget. Half a million homes will be insulated this year. That is why the United Kingdom has been one of the first—if not the first—countries to make it clear how we will achieve the targets set in international conventions on meeting and reducing carbon dioxide emissions so that they are stabilised at 1990 levels by 2000.
If right hon. and hon. Members have not understood where the Government stand on the Bill, they have not listened to anything that was said during the debate. We have made it very clear that we are determined to meet our international commitments. We believe that local authorities have a part to play in that. Everything that has been said during the debate makes it perfectly clear that—

It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered on Friday 13 May.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Only because my right hon. Friend alluded to it, I think it right to ask whether you think it is an unprecedented—I ask this seriously—breach of the procedures of the House that a Minister, who starts a debate at 9·30 am, is the person responsible for blocking the progress of a private Member's Bill through Parliament simply by the use of the delaying mechanism of time? My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) can find ways of bringing the Bill back. It is important that the House and the country know whether, if we manage to find two, three or four more days in the Session, Ministers—not Back Benchers—can block—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a point, but how those arrangements are made is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr. Tom Cox: With the permission of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 10 June.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 June.

HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

HEDGEROWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Mr. Cox: On the Hedgerows Bill, with the permission of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 10 June.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Hedgerows Bill has already been dealt with. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to act on behalf of another hon. Member, I am afraid that he must be quicker.

NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr. Harry Cohen: On behalf of the hon.

Member whose Bill it is, Friday 6 May.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.

SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On an entirely separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the Hedgerows Bill, which you have just been asked about, I heard an attempt from behind me—I did not look round —to say something on that when it was read out by the Clerk. I am concerned that it might inadvertently have been allowed to be dealt with without being moved. I accept that it was objected to, but there is a fundamental difference between not moving a Bill and an objection, even though the measure can come back. I wonder whether you could put the Bill again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not hear any hon. Member say "Now", which is the trigger for further activity. If hon. Members could clarify for themselves exactly what the procedure is, there might not be these difficulties and misunderstandings. But, of course, it does not prevent the Bill from being brought back at a later stage.

Orders of the Day — Tower Colliery, Cynon Valley

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this debate, although I must admit that a week ago I did not think that the circumstances in which I would speak would be as they are today.
I wonder how many hon. Members in the House have seen grown men weep, women cry and frightened children clutch their parents' arms apprehensively, knowing that something very wrong has happened but not quite understanding why or what. That was the dreadful scene in and around Tower colliery earlier this week. In the end, the miners accepted that their heroic battle to save the pit was over as it became obvious to them that they could no longer put any trust in the promises and pledges made to them by the management of British Coal.
I had to tell members of the National Union of Mineworkers lodge that, in my considered opinion, Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal, could no longer tell the difference between right and wrong and that in the conversation that I had with him he lied, lied and lied again.
I can remember the days when people in public life, even those with whom one disagreed, upheld standards of decency and integrity. They were driven by notions of fair play. Plain dealing, plain speaking and an honest approach to others were important to them. I very much regret that, in falling short of those ideals, Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal, has debased, demeaned and diminished public life. As a public servant, there is only one last thing that in honour he should do. He should resign from public life and promise never to return.
Put bluntly, Neil Clarke played politics with miners, their families and the local community. The sheer brutality of what he did was summed up to me yesterday when Tyrone O'Sullivan, the lodge secretary, overcome with emotion, said to me:
Yesterday, when I went down to Newport, when we were called at short notice, to sign the final death writ on Tower Colliery, I couldn't talk, I couldn't look at them.
He was referring to the management. He continued:
They said we must sign the pit over now, officially, that it was to close.
We stated that nobody on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers of Tower Lodge would sign any document that agreed to the closure of Tower Colliery, and that was endorsed by the General Meeting unanimously, that Tower Lodge officials, because of the work they had done for the pit, should never, ever have to sign that final document as we felt that it would be degrading to us, as a lodge, as we had only fought for the future.
But worse of all, when I returned to the car, I could not face anybody and half way home I stopped the car and I could not stop crying.
I last felt like this when my father got killed in the pit and on the last afternoon, when they were taking the coffin, out of the front room to go to the hearse, and I had not cried throughout the whole period, as I was the oldest son at home and I had to look after my youngest brother and sister, but at that moment my whole world fell apart.
At that moment, yesterday, when I was driving back from Newport, it was exactly the same feeling, I felt as though I had lost my father again. The emotion I went through at that stage was quite incredible, even talking about it, I feel exactly the same." He stopped at that point. He could not go on.


The Coal Board attempted to force on the miners of Tower colliery the final humiliation—to sign away one by one as members of the lodge the future of that pit. The fight to save the last pit in south Wales has been going on since 1992. We have had countless debates, rallies, delegations and petitions. You mention it, we have done it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Just before Easter the lodge officials were called to a meeting with British Coal. They were told that the pit was to close. Press leaks the day before from British Coal mentioned geological problems as the reason. The miners knew otherwise. The next day British Coal was forced to admit that the loss of markets was the reason for closure. As we all know, those markets had already been rigged against coal.
Two days later, Tower NUM held a ballot on closure. A majority voted to fight on, but within hours British Coal's dirty tricks outfit started to try to undermine the result, telephoning men at home to try to break their resolve and briefing the press.
A week last Wednesday, 13 April, Neil Clarke, chairman of British Coal, agreed to meet my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and me the following week to discuss Tower. He did not say that by then it would be shut.
Last Friday, 15 April, when I came up from the pit, I read a press release from British Coal that stated categorically that the pay of miners would not be cut and that conditions of work would not be altered for the worse. Miners voted again, by a much bigger majority, to fight the closure. Just one hour later, the lodge was being given a totally different story by British Coal and that promise was broken.
This Monday, 18 April, I spoke again to Neil Clarke, who assured me that the pay and conditions of miners at Tower would not be changed and that a so-called time limit of 6 pm that day, by which miners had to decide whether to accept enhanced redundancy and the other sweeteners, simply did not exist. Yet, at the same time, the lodge was told by local management, on instructions from British Coal, that it would have to accept the wage cut and that there was a 6 pm deadline. Dishonesty on this scale is almost impossible to comprehend, so one is bound to ask on whose behalf Neil Clarke was acting.
That brings me to the role of Ministers and the Government. The President of the Board of Trade and his Minister for Energy have practised a massive deception. The fact that nobody from that Department is here today speaks for itself. They have practised a deception on miners, who were asked to improve their productivity and who broke all the records, only to find that it did not make a scrap of difference, deception on the people of Britain, who were persuaded that their massive protest against pit closures in 1992 had worked, only to find that the only change was the time scale in which the pits were to be closed and deception on Conservative Back Benchers who voted for the White Paper, only to find that the 12 pits that they thought were to be saved were to be closed anyway.
Many of us remember the report that N. M. Rothschild, the merchant bankers, originally prepared for the Government—a secret report by Tory bankers predicting that thousands of miners would be thrown on the dole and that Britain could have as few as a dozen working collieries. The then Secretary of State for Energy, Lord Wakeham, blamed Labour for scare stories, which he dismissed as coming from cloud cuckoo land.
As for the present Secretary of State for Wales, let us not forget that he was investment manager and director of N.M. Rothschild between 1977 and 1987 and was a specialist on privatisation. Small wonder that he was uncontactable, as his office told me on two or three occasions, during the crucial week when the House was on holiday and the closure of Tower colliery announced. He had gone to ground, yet some months ago he was warmly congratulating miners in his office on their productivity and profitability.
The tragedy for Tower colliery and many others is that if Labour had won the last election we would have taken steps to end the rigging of the market so that British coal would have had a fair chance to compete.
I know many men who have lost their jobs in coal in my valley, and many of my hon. Friends here can say the same. Those miners have families and mortgages, and some are still trying to make up for the money that they lost during the strike of 1984. Of those made redundant in the past 10 years, less than half have found other jobs. Redundancy money goes very quickly when one has a family to support and the years slip by. As they get older, they are even less likely to get a job in the kind of world created by this Government.
Recently, men coming to my advice surgery tell me that although they have applied for 50 jobs or more, they have not got even an acknowledgment, let alone an interview. One ex-miner came to see me with tears in his eyes. He asked, "What do they expect me to do? Walk into the river?"
Miners have consistently been treated appallingly by Tory Governments. Yet another example of that was the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations, introduced in September 1993, which were drawn up in a way that makes it almost impossible for a miner to succeed with an application. The original regulations are in great need of amendment, and I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) which would reduce the qualification period from 20 to 10 years, reduce the disability threshold from 20 to 10 years, replace the FEV—forced expiratory volume —test with a sensitive medical examination and make soft expensive X-rays universal for diagnosing dust retention.
I remember walking down a street in the village of Penrhiw-ceihr during my by-election and being introduced to miners there. In almost every house in that street there was a miner taking oxygen. I walked down that street two years later and people said, "He is dead," and, "He is in hospital." Many of us can repeat similar stories. Therefore, I urge the Government to support my hon. Friend's Bill.
The economic consequences of the closure of Tower colliery on Cynon Valley are all too obvious. The independent consultants Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte recently carried out an impact study which showed those consequences. They found that it would have the single biggest impact on the economy of the valley of any industry in the area. More than £10 million each year will be lost to the local economy and male unemployment could, in their estimate, rise to one in four.
Before the industrial revolution, in the part of Wales that I represent, squirrels were able to jump from tree to tree from Hirwaun all the way to Cardiff, a distance of about 25 miles. Of course, that is no longer possible because Cynon Valley and its population are built on coal. At its peak, the industry employed more than 30,0(X) miners in more than 40 mines. At the time of


nationalisation in 1947, there were still 13 coal mines employing more than 8,000 men. When I was first elected to Parliament, there were three working pits in the valley. Five thousand mining jobs were lost to the area in the 1980s and, of course, we have not escaped the national decline in manufacturing industry.
Cynon Valley can claim a number of indicators of deprivation: falling population, high levels of reported long-term illness, many people without a job and a relatively high proportion of households lacking basic amenities, even in 1994. Two years ago, crime increased by 13 per cent. on the previous year compared with an increase of 4 per cent. in south Wales overall. The Aberdare job centre told me this morning that 38 people are chasing every vacancy. What is more, those figures cover only the people currently claiming unemployment benefit. If we include those who are without work but who are not entitled to benefit because the Government are massaging the figures, the position is even worse.
The economy of Cynon Valley is heavily dependent on a small number of major employers. In 1989, nearly 60 per cent. of the work force was directly employed by 2·5 per cent. of the companies in the valley. The growth of service industry jobs has been wholly insufficient to make up for the decline in other sectors.
The Great Britain increase in overall employment of 5 per cent. between 1981 and 1989 compares with the decline of 17 per cent. in Cynon Valley. It already costs £32 million each year to keep the unemployed of Cynon Valley on the dole and we can add another £5 million each year to the figure now that Tower has closed. The cost of closure to the Exchequer, in terms of redundancy, lost tax and unemployment benefit, will be more than £30 million in the next three years.
The much-trumpeted valleys initiative has provided minimal help. Its main economic aim was to create jobs —everyone agrees that it has failed in that. Even the statistical department of the Welsh Office confirms the failure of the valleys initiative. Some 6,500 manufacturing jobs were lost during the period of the programme. Furthermore, the Welsh Office has yet to provide figures that show how much additional money the valleys initiative has provided.
A report last year showed that Cynon Valley was fourth from bottom of the Welsh district poverty league table in 1981. Ten years later, using the same indices, the report's authors found that despite all the hype surrounding the valleys initiative, Cynon Valley had moved from fourth from bottom to second from bottom. I quote one section of the report, which says:
the valleys initiative has either largely failed the core valley problem areas, or has an immense amount of work remaining, depending on one's level of cynicism.
The Minister will know that now that Tower has closed, the loss of the subsidy provided for the valleys' rail link to Cardiff by coal freight may mean the closure of the line. That would be a desperate blow to efforts at regeneration in Cynon Valley. I should like the Minister to make a statement today that will assure a secure future for that rail link.
There was no case for the closure of Tower; it is economically viable. There was a profit of £28 million in the past three years and overall productivity at Tower increased by 35 per cent. in 12 months. Last year, Britain

imported 15·3 million tonnes of coal at prices ranging from £28 per tonne to £38 per tonne. That compares with the best of Tower production, which cost £30 per tonne.
Tower will now operate on a care and maintenance basis which means having to pay the costs of mothballing without getting the benefit of output. It also means that in an area of cruel and long-term unemployment, the men will receive their redundancy payments and then be put on the dole.
The Government will, of course, claim that they have done their best for the coal industry and that there is no market for coal. However, they rigged the energy market against coal. That market that has been rigged to the advantage of everyone in the world except the British coal industry and the British people. It is rigged to the advantage of the nuclear industry, foreign coal producers, the multinational oil companies, which sell the British people their own North sea gas, the foreign suppliers of orimulsion and the foreign builders of the gas-fired power stations appearing all over Britain. Indeed, the Government's energy policy is clearly intended to help every energy industry in the world except our own.
I was elected to represent Cynon Valley in the middle of the miners' strike in 1984. I have always had a strong bond with the National Union of Mineworkers—as a journalist, joining its campaign for proper compensation for pneumoconiosis and as a politician, supporting many of its struggles. I know of the human cost in lost lives and poor health for those who worked in the industry and I know of the comradeship of those who worked down the pits. Today, I join in the distress of the men at Tower and their families that the dishonest manoeuvrings of the Government and British Coal have killed the last pit in south Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I should wish to think that it is emotion—an emotion I understand—that justifies the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) in her intemperate and unjustified approach to the issue. I totally reject the charges of deception and dishonesty she so carelessly and unjustly throws at my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I well understand the uncertainties and unhappiness created in recent weeks by the discussions between British Coal and the mining unions over the future of Tower. The hon. Lady should not think that she has a monopoly on affinity or empathy with the miners of South Wales. Neither of us was born in South Wales and I have probably more coal dust in my veins than she has—both my grandfathers worked in the pits of South Wales.
The decision to end the work of the pit was announced by British Coal, following further discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers. The colliery is to be put on a care and maintenance basis and offered for sale alongside the corporation's other assets in Wales. Tower is not necessarily closing permanently. The opportunity is there for new owners, perhaps the management and employees, to take over the mine. I am sure that everyone in the House and outside it would want a prosperous future for the colliery under new ownership. If the management and employees of Tower are interested in pursuing the


possibilities, Government support is available of up to 50 per cent. of the consultancy that would be involved, up to a maximum of £80,000.
I accept entirely that the immediate effect of the announcement has been to cause great anxiety among the miners and more generally in the community about employment prospects and about the economic outlook of the area. Our response to recent events must be and will be a comprehensive and co-ordinated action programme, involving all the main parties which are concerned with economic and social regeneration of the Cynon valley.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the Minister explain why he is replying and not the Minister responsible? The tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks was concern about how the decisions were taken and how the opportunities for the colliery to stay in existence and to stay working were thrown away by the deception of the senior management of British Coal. Surely, a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry should be answering, not someone from the Welsh Office who is sweeping up the mess created by the inadequacy of the DTI and British Coal.

Mr. Jones: I certainly do not accept the criticism implied by the hon. Gentleman. The Welsh Office is equally interested in and concerned about Tower and the Cynon valley. That is why I am content to be here at the Dispatch Box answering the hon. Lady.
Our aims are to create more locally based employment opportunities, to improve local infrastructure and the local environment and to create the right conditions for more investment, and to improve the attraction and training position of the towns in the area. That will require a strong and effective partnership between Government, local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, the training and enterprise councils, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and others, which are all fully committed to the task and working to a common agenda.
The heart of the programme must be determined by the local authorities representing the people in the communities of the Cynon valley. They understand better than anyone the problems and needs of the area and are in the best position to devise and co-ordinate an effective development strategy that sets out a clear vision for the future as well as a realistic and deliverable programme for its achievement.
At this point, I must pay tribute to the Cynon Valley borough council, which has shown skill, imagination and commitment in its economic development work. Its activities have won the confidence of the public and private sectors. I can tell the House that the borough council yesterday proposed the establishment of an enterprise zone in the Cynon valley, which it believes will improve the climate for new investment.
Of course, that is a complex and difficult area in which there are also European Commission controls. We are suggesting to the borough council that it may wish to consider obtaining professional help in assembling a full case for consideration. The Welsh Office will be offering to fund a consultancy for that purpose. We shall be ready to examine carefully any application that may be submitted.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined that the authority should have the fullest support. It will be available on five main fronts. First, as

some hon. Members will be aware, in 1991, the Welsh Development Agency, the borough council and Mid Glamorgan county council formalised their working relationship as an urban joint venture partnership with the aim of generating substantial public and private sector investment in the Cynon valley.
To date, the Welsh Development Agency has spent almost £9,000,000 in the area on a range of activities. By the mid-1990s, the agency will have been involved in reclamation of approximately 1,000 acres of derelict land. Business parks such as Cwm Cynon and Navigation are being developed as well as the industrial estates at Hirwaun and Aberaman park.
All that has represented solid progress, and on 7 April, the Welsh Development Agency announced a major expansion of its commitment to the area. Planned investment by the agency over the next two years will be increased from just over £17 million to just under £28 million, an increase of more than 60 per cent., with schemes ranging from road improvements to factory building. Those additional moneys will be channelled through the joint venture.
The Welsh Development Agency estimates that that level of investment will, over the next three to four years, trigger substantial additional investment by initiating projects that will have the backing of private companies —up to £19 million of commercial investment is anticipated in 1994-95 and a further £22 million in 1995-96. The work on that highly-productive joint venture will continue to be supported and strengthened through the operation of the Welsh Office's own programmes.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend recently announced that the A465 heads of the valleys road is to be developed as one of the major strategic east-west links. The dualling of the nine-mile Aberdulais-Glynneath stretch at a cost of £80 million began in January of this year and dualling of the 25 miles of road between Abergavenny and Hirwaun is to be accelerated. The dual carriageway link between the M4 and the A465 is to be completed, with the Pentrebach-Cefn Coed improvement due to start soon at a cost of £50 million. Those major improvements to communications with and within the valleys are a crucial consideration for investors. They form an essential part of the regeneration process.
Thirdly, in recent years, the Cynon valley has benefited substantially from support under the Welsh Office's urban programme. From the current financial year, that programme has been succeeded by the new strategic development scheme. In the recent bidding round, Cynon Valley borough council, together with Mid Glamorgan county council, submitted very sound strategies focused on the development of Aberdare and Mountain Ash.
Following recent discussions with the local authority, the Welsh Office expects shortly to give full approval to a single strategy for the area, with funding of almost £4,500,000 over three years to support 15 projects. The outputs expected from that investment include new flexible industrial units with a floor space of 25,000 square feet; improvements to 12 acres of land for development; leverage of £3,100,000 of commercial investment, achieving a total of £7,500,000; and important road improvements near Mountain Ash and access improvements.
Projects covered under the strategy include the Abercynon innovation centre; the Cynon Valley business centre; realignment of the railway line; and construction of a new station.
Allied to this urban development activity, and within the framework of the programme for the valleys, £500,000 was recently announced for Bryncynon for its successful community revival strategy bid for the development of community facilities in the area.
Work is also expected to start in June on the construction of a specialised scenery store and workshop in

the Royal Opera house at Aberaman. Urban investment grant of nearly £1.5 million has been awarded towards total project costs of £5.5 million.
Fourthly, the training and enterprise councils play an important role in the regeneration process because of their support for the training and re-training of individuals so that they acquire the skills that the market needs. But the training and enterprise councils also have the ability to devise—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past Three o'clock